Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The influence of patients' hopes of receiving a prescription on doctors' perceptions and the decision to prescribe: a questionnaire survey

Open access
Britten, Nicky, Ukoumunne, Obioha·1997·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives: To measure patients' expectations of receiving prescriptions and general practitioners' perceptions of these expectations and to determine the factors most closely associated with the decision to prescribe. Design: Questionnaires were completed by patients waiting to see their general practitioners, and by their doctors immediately after the consultations. Setting: Four non-fundholding group practices in southeast London. Subjects: 544 unselected patients consulting 15 general practitioners. Main outcome measures: Doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations; doctors' decisions to prescribe. Results: 67% (354/526) of patients hoped for a prescription; doctors perceived that 56% (305/542) of patients wanted prescriptions; and doctors wrote prescriptions in 59% (321/543) of consultations. Despite the close agreement between patients' hopes and doctors' perceptions, 25% (89/353) of patients hoped for a prescription but did not receive one. In 22% (68/313) of consultations in which prescriptions were written, they were not strictly indicated on purely medical grounds, and in only 66% (202/306) of consultations in which prescriptions were written were they both indicated and hoped for. Doctors' perceptions of patients' expectations were the strongest predictor of the decision to prescribe, but the final regression model also included patients' hopes and ethnic group, and the doctor's feeling of being pressurised. Conclusions: In an area of low prescribing and high expectations the decision to prescribe was closely related to actual and perceived expectations, but the latter was the more significant influence. Key messages: Evidence that patients' expectations influence general practitioners' prescribing is equivocal; in this study patients' hopes of receiving a prescription exceeded both doctors' perceptions and the level of prescribing Over a quarter of patients who hoped for a prescription did not receive one In a fifth of consultations in which a prescription was written, the prescription was not strictly indicated on purely medical grounds Doctors' perceptions were the strongest determinant of the decision to prescribe Doctors who felt pressurised were less likely to write a prescription if they perceived that the patient wanted one, and if they did write a prescription, it was less likely to be indicated than when the doctor did not feel pressurised

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1506

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Britten, N., & Ukoumunne, O.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1997-12-06
Volume
315
Issue
7121
Pages
1506-1510
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2084155907
Cited by
340
References
14
FWCI
33.60
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: The influence of patients' hopes of receiving a prescription on doctors' perceptions and the decision to prescribe: a questionnaire survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1506
The paper
Britten, N., & Ukoumunne, O. (1997). The influence of patients' hopes of receiving a prescription on doctors' perceptions and the decision to prescribe: a questionnaire survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7121.1506

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.