Cited by 31Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyPharmaceutical industry and healthcareHealthcare Policy and Management

Does the early adopter of drugs exist? A population-based study of general practitioners? prescribing of new drugs

Dybdahl, Torben, Andersen, Morten, S�ndergaard, Jens, Kragstrup, Jakob, Kristiansen, Ivar S�nb�·2004·European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Objective To analyse associations between indicators for adoption of new drugs and to test the hypothesis that physicians' early adoption of new drugs is a personal trait independent of drug groups.Methods In a population-based cohort study using register data, we analysed the prescribing of new drugs by Danish general practitioners. Angiotensin-II antagonists, triptans, selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 antagonists and esomeprazol were used in the assessment. As indicators of new drug uptake, we used adoption time, cumulative incidence, preference proportion, incidence rate and prescription cost and volume. For each measure, we ranked the general practices. Ranks were pair-wise plotted, and Pearson's correlation coefficient ( r) was calculated. Next, we analysed the correlation between ranks across different drug classes.Results For all indicators, the general practitioners' adoption of one group of drugs was poorly associated with adoption of others ( r</=0.49), indicating that early adoption of one type of drugs is not associated with early adoption of another. For all drug groups, adoption time adjusted for practice size was only weakly associated with other indicators ( r: -0.56 to -0.27). Indicators, based on cost and volume of drugs, were highly correlated ( r: 0.96-0.99), and the others correlated reasonably well ( r: 0.51-0.91).Conclusions Within drug groups, indicators of drug adoption, except for adoption time, correlate reasonably well. However, the theory that physicians' early adoption of new drugs is a personal trait independent of the type of drug could not be confirmed. The notion of the early-drug-adopting general practitioner may be mistaken.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00228-004-0797-1

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dybdahl, T., Andersen, M., S�ndergaard, J., Kragstrup, J., & Kristiansen, I. S.
Affiliations
University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Dybdahl, Torben
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Published
2004-10-21
Volume
60
Issue
9
Pages
667-672
ISSN
  • 0031-6970 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1041
OpenAlex
W1995259694
Cited by
31
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
early adopters, general practitioners, prescribing patterns, angiotensin receptor blockers, triptans, esomeprazole
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Denmark, Drug Therapy, Drug Utilization, Family Practice, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review