| Title |
GPs' attitudes to benzodiazepine and 'Z-drug' prescribing: a barrier to implementation of evidence and guidance on hypnotics.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, December 2006
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A Niroshan Siriwardena, Zubair Qureshi, Steve Gibson, Sarah Collier, Martin Latham |
| Abstract |
Zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone ('Z-drugs') prescribing is gradually rising in the UK, while that of benzodiazepine hypnotics is falling. This situation is contrary to current evidence and guidance on hypnotic prescribing. The aim of this study was to determine and compare primary care physicians' perceptions of benefits and risks of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use, and physicians' prescribing behaviour in relation to hypnotics using a cross-sectional survey. In 2005 a self-administered postal questionnaire was sent to all GPs in West Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust. The questionnaire investigated perceptions of benefits and disadvantages of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs. Of the 107 questionnaires sent to GPs, 84 (78.5%) analysable responses were received. Responders believed that Z-drugs were more effective than benzodiazepines in terms of patients feeling rested on waking (P<0.001), daytime functioning (P<0.001), and total sleep time (P = 0.03). Z-drugs were also thought to be safer in terms of tolerance (P<0.001), addiction (P<0.001), dependence (P<0.001), daytime sleepiness (P<0.001), and road traffic accidents (P = 0.018), and were thought to be safer for older people (P<0.001). There were significant differences between GPs' perceptions of the relative benefits and risk of Z-drugs compared with benzodiazepines. The majority of practitioners attributed greater efficacy and lower side effects to Z-drugs. GPs' beliefs about effectiveness and safety are not determined by current evidence or national (NICE) guidance which may explain the increase in Z-drug prescribing relative to benzodiazepine prescribing. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 20% |
| Researcher | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 27% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 11% |
| Psychology | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 15% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2024.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,838
of 4,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,597
of 168,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.