Does drug treatment of patients with acute bronchitis reduce additional care seeking? Evidence from the Practice Partner Research Network.

W J Hueston, R Jenkins, A G Mainous
{"title":"Does drug treatment of patients with acute bronchitis reduce additional care seeking? Evidence from the Practice Partner Research Network.","authors":"W J Hueston,&nbsp;R Jenkins,&nbsp;A G Mainous","doi":"10.1001/archfami.9.10.997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Considerable discussion has focused on treatment methods for patients with acute bronchitis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine whether antibiotic or bronchodilator treatment is associated with differences in follow-up visit rates for patients with acute bronchitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective medical chart review was conducted for patients with a new episode of acute bronchitis over a 3-year period in the Practice Partner Research Network (29,248 episodes in 24,753 patients). Primary outcomes of interest were another visit in the next 14 days (early follow-up) or 15 to 28 days after initial treatment (late follow-up).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Antibiotics were used more commonly in younger patients (<18 years), whereas older patients (>65 years) were more likely to receive no treatment. Younger patients treated with antibiotics were less likely to return for an early follow-up visit, but no differences were seen in adults and older patients. Late follow-up rates were not affected by the initial treatment strategy. When patients did return for a follow-up visit, no new medication was prescribed to most (66% of younger patients and 78% of older adults). However, compared with patients who did not receive an antibiotic at their first visit, patients initially treated with an antibiotic were about 50% more likely to receive a new antibiotic at their second visit.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Initial prescribing of an antibiotic reduces early follow-up for acute bronchitis in younger patients but seems to have no effect in adults. However, reductions in future follow-up visits might be outweighed by increases in antibiotic consumption because patients who return for a follow-up visit seem to receive additional antibiotic prescriptions. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:997-1001</p>","PeriodicalId":8295,"journal":{"name":"Archives of family medicine","volume":"9 10","pages":"997-1001"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of family medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archfami.9.10.997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: Considerable discussion has focused on treatment methods for patients with acute bronchitis.

Objective: To examine whether antibiotic or bronchodilator treatment is associated with differences in follow-up visit rates for patients with acute bronchitis.

Methods: A retrospective medical chart review was conducted for patients with a new episode of acute bronchitis over a 3-year period in the Practice Partner Research Network (29,248 episodes in 24,753 patients). Primary outcomes of interest were another visit in the next 14 days (early follow-up) or 15 to 28 days after initial treatment (late follow-up).

Results: Antibiotics were used more commonly in younger patients (<18 years), whereas older patients (>65 years) were more likely to receive no treatment. Younger patients treated with antibiotics were less likely to return for an early follow-up visit, but no differences were seen in adults and older patients. Late follow-up rates were not affected by the initial treatment strategy. When patients did return for a follow-up visit, no new medication was prescribed to most (66% of younger patients and 78% of older adults). However, compared with patients who did not receive an antibiotic at their first visit, patients initially treated with an antibiotic were about 50% more likely to receive a new antibiotic at their second visit.

Conclusions: Initial prescribing of an antibiotic reduces early follow-up for acute bronchitis in younger patients but seems to have no effect in adults. However, reductions in future follow-up visits might be outweighed by increases in antibiotic consumption because patients who return for a follow-up visit seem to receive additional antibiotic prescriptions. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:997-1001

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性支气管炎患者的药物治疗是否减少了额外的求诊?来自实践伙伴研究网络的证据。
背景:对急性支气管炎患者的治疗方法进行了大量的讨论。目的:探讨抗生素或支气管扩张剂治疗是否与急性支气管炎患者随访率的差异有关。方法:回顾性分析在实践伙伴研究网络(24,753例患者,29,248例)3年内新发急性支气管炎患者的病历。主要结局是在接下来的14天(早期随访)或在初始治疗后15至28天(晚期随访)再次就诊。结果:年龄较小的患者(65岁)更常使用抗生素,更有可能未接受治疗。接受抗生素治疗的年轻患者返回早期随访的可能性较小,但在成人和老年患者中没有发现差异。后期随访率不受初始治疗策略的影响。当患者返回进行随访时,大多数患者(66%的年轻患者和78%的老年人)没有开新的药物。然而,与第一次就诊时未接受抗生素治疗的患者相比,最初接受抗生素治疗的患者在第二次就诊时接受新抗生素治疗的可能性约为50%。结论:抗生素的初始处方减少了年轻患者急性支气管炎的早期随访,但似乎对成人没有影响。然而,未来随访的减少可能会被抗生素消耗的增加所抵消,因为返回随访的患者似乎会收到额外的抗生素处方。中华医学杂志。2000;9:997-1001
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Human papillomavirus infection. Walking the line. A Short Collection of Fables for Learning the Fundamental Principles of Family Medicine: Chapter 1. Comprehensiveness, Continuity, Contextualization and Family Clues to early Alzheimer dementia in the outpatient setting. Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1