The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prescribing behaviour in clinical practice: patients' expectations and doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations—a questionnaire study
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To examine the effect of patients' expectations for medication and doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations on prescribing when patients present with new conditions. Design: Questionnaire study of practitioners and patients. Setting: General practice in Newcastle, Australia. Subjects: 22 non-randomly selected general practitioners and 336 of their patients with a newly diagnosed medical condition. Main outcome measures: Prescription of medication and expectation of it. Results: Medication was prescribed for 169 (50%) patients. After controlling for the presenting condition, patients who expected medication were nearly three times more likely to receive medication (odds ratio=2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 6.3). When the general practitioner thought the patient expected medication the patient was 10 times more likely to receive it (odds ratio=10.1, 5.3 to 19.6). A significant association existed between patients' expectation and doctors' perception of patients' expectation (χ 2 =52.0, df=4, P=0.001). For all categories of patient expectation, however, patients were more likely to receive medication when the practitioner judged the patient to want medication than when the practitioner ascribed no expectation to the patient. Conclusions: Although patients brought expectations to the consultation regarding medication, the doctors' opinions about their expectations were the strongest determinants of prescribing. Key messages: This study showed that patients who expected medications were three times more likely to be prescribed medicines for new conditions If the general practitioner thought that the patient expected medication, patients were ten times more likely to be prescribed medication Although patients brought expectations to the consultation regarding medication, it was the doctors' opinions about patients' expectations that were the strongest determinants of prescribing With the increasing promotion of rational prescribing, practitioners need to be aware of these influences on prescribing
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Little, P., Everitt, H., Williamson, I., Warner, G., Moore, M., Gould, C., Ferrier, K., & Payne, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7284.468 · Cited by 766
Patient safety: what about the patient?
Vincent, C. A. (2002) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.1.76 · Cited by 454
Doctor–patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making
Stevenson, F. A., Barry, C. A., Britten, N., Barber, N., & Bradley, C. P. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00376-7 · Cited by 434
Guidelines for Evaluating Chronic Cough in Pediatrics
Chang, A. B., & Glomb, W. B. (2006) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.129.1_suppl.260s · Cited by 356
Britten, N., & Ukoumunne, O. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1506 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Cockburn, J., & Pit, S.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1997-08-30
- Volume
- 315
- Issue
- 7107
- Pages
- 520-523
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1964355339
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prescribing behaviour in clinical practice: patients' expectations and doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations—a questionnaire study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7107.520
- The paper
- Cockburn, J., & Pit, S. (1997). Prescribing behaviour in clinical practice: patients' expectations and doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations—a questionnaire study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7107.520
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.