Cited by 58Antibiotic Use and ResistanceDental Health and Care UtilizationHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Dental consultations in UK general practice and antibiotic prescribing rates: a retrospective cohort study

Open access
Cope, Anwen L, Chestnutt, Ivor G, Wood, Fiona, Francis, Nick A·2016·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: The frequency of consulting for dental problems in general medical practice, and antibiotic prescribing associated with these consultations, is poorly described. Aim: To describe consultation rates and antibiotic use for dental problems in UK general medical practice, and explore factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for dental conditions. Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a database of general practice patient records in the UK. Method: All dental consultations between 2004 and 2013 were identified. The main outcome was the prescription of an antibiotic during a dental consultation. Multilevel logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with antibiotic prescription. Results: In all, 288 169 dental consultations were included in the cohort. The average rate of dental consultations was 6.06 consultations per 1000 patient-years. Rates of dental consultation decreased from 6.84 consultations per 1000 patient-years in 2008, to 4.23 consultations per 1000 patient-years in 2013. Consultation rates were higher among females than males and highest in patients aged 20–29 years. An antibiotic was prescribed in 57.1% of consultations. Significant predictors (P<0.001) of antibiotic prescribing included: patient middle age, male sex, and previous consultations for tooth-related problems. Antibiotics were more likely to be prescribed during consultations in December (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 1.24,P<0.001, reference month: June) and on a Monday (OR 1.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.13,P<0.001) or a Friday (OR 1.15, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.18,P<0.001, reference day: Wednesday). Conclusion: Consultation rates for dental problems in UK general practice are relatively low but more than half result in the prescription of an antibiotic. This raises concerns about patient morbidity and contributions to antimicrobial resistance.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp16x684757

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • Problem-driven dental care leads to inappropriate and costly use of other services such as A&E and general medical practice.

    “It is also well established that problem- driven dental care leads to inappropriate and costly use of other services such as A&amp;E and general medical practice [8].”

    From Economic Evaluation of the <scp>RETURN</scp> Intervention to Increase Routine Dental Attendance Among Disadvantaged Adults: Net Health Benefit ( <scp>QALYs</scp> ) and Patient Cost Outcomes From a Randomised Controlled Trial (2026) · cites this paper as [8]

    The introduction says some patients consult a GP rather than a dentist for dental problems and that most such problems cannot be comprehensively managed in general practice. “How this fits in” says these consultations may substantially burden some practices. The paper does not establish that this use is costly, and “Comparison with existing literature” mentions increased A&E attendance only as a possible explanation for falling GP consultation rates, not as a demonstrated consequence of problem-driven dental care (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Cope, A. L., Chestnutt, I. G., Wood, F., & Francis, N. A.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2016-03-29
Volume
66
Issue
646
Pages
e329-e336
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2313312858
Cited by
58
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cardiff University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
dental consultation, antibiotic prescribing, general practice, consultation rates, antimicrobial resistance, seasonal variation in prescribing, sex differences, age differences, primary care
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Female, General Practice, Dental, United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Socioeconomic Factors, Logistic Models, General Practice

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