Antibiotic prescribing patterns in out-of-hours primary care: A population-based descriptive study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency and characteristics of antibiotic prescribing for different types of contacts with the Danish out-of-hours (OOH) primary care service. DESIGN: Population-based observational registry study using routine registry data from the OOH registration system on patient contacts and ATC-coded prescriptions. SETTING: The OOH primary care service in the Central Denmark Region. SUBJECTS: All contacts with OOH primary care during a 12-month period (June 2010-May 2011). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive analyses of antibiotic prescription proportions stratified for type of antibiotic, patient age and gender, contact type, and weekdays or weekend. RESULTS: Of the 644 777 contacts registered during the study period, 15.0% received an antibiotic prescription: 26.1% resulted from clinic consultations, 10.7% from telephone consultations, and 10.9% from home visits. The prescription proportion was higher for weekends (17.6%) than for weekdays (10.6%). The most frequently prescribed antibiotic drugs were beta-lactamase sensitive penicillins (34.9%), antibiotic eye drops (21.2%), and broad-spectrum penicillins (21.0%). Most antibiotic eye drops (73%) were prescribed in a telephone consultation. Most antibiotics were prescribed at 4-6 p.m. on weekdays. Young infants received most antibacterial eye drops (41.3%), patients aged 5-17 years and 18-60 years received most beta-lactamase sensitive penicillins (44.6% and 38.9%, respectively), while patients aged 60 + years received most broad-spectrum penicillins (32.9% of all antibiotic prescriptions). CONCLUSION: Antibiotics were most often prescribed in clinic consultations, but, in absolute terms, many were also prescribed by telephone. The high prescription proportion, particularly antibacterial eye drops for young infants, suggests room for improvement in rational antibiotic use.
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
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.
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?
Huibers et al 2014 reported that the antibiotic-prescribing rate was 26.1% (95% CI 25.9-26.3) in remote consultations versus 10.7% (95% CI 10.6-10.8) in face-to-face consultations.
“Intervention: 26.1% (95% CI 25.9-26.3) Control: 10.7% (95% CI 10.6-10.8)”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
Four included studies lacked adjustment for any confounding factors.
“Additionally, 4 studies lacked adjustment for any confounding factors [16,18,20,23].”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
The review found 3 cohort studies in which patients were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic through face-to-face consultations than remote consultations.
“We also found 3 cohort studies that reported patients were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic through face-to-face consultations [16,25,26].”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Huibers, L., Moth, G., Christensen, M. B., & Vedsted, P.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Huibers, Linda
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 200-207
- ISSN
- 0281-3432 (ISSN-L)
- 1502-7724
- PMC
- PMC4278398
- OpenAlex
- W2013855119
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- antibiotic prescribing, out-of-hours primary care, antibiotic eye drops, broad-spectrum penicillins, telephone consultation, home visits, rational antibiotic use, infants, prescribing patterns
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Child, Child, Preschool, Denmark, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Drug Prescriptions, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies, After-Hours Care, Young Adult, Observational Studies as Topic
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