Exploring the equity of GP practice prescribing rates for selected coronary heart disease drugs: a multiple regression analysis with proxies of healthcare need

Background There is a small, but growing body of literature highlighting inequities in GP practice prescribing rates for many drug therapies. The aim of this paper is to further explore the equity of prescribing for five major CHD drug groups and to explain the amount of variation in GP practice prescribing rates that can be explained by a range of healthcare needs indicators (HCNIs). Methods The study involved a cross-sectional secondary analysis in four primary care trusts (PCTs 1–4) in the North West of England, including 132 GP practices. Prescribing rates (average daily quantities per registered patient aged over 35 years) and HCNIs were developed for all GP practices. Analysis was undertaken using multiple linear regression. Results Between 22–25% of the variation in prescribing rates for statins, beta-blockers and bendrofluazide was explained in the multiple regression models. Slightly more variation was explained for ACE inhibitors (31.6%) and considerably more for aspirin (51.2%). Prescribing rates were positively associated with CHD hospital diagnoses and procedures for all drug groups other than ACE inhibitors. The proportion of patients aged 55–74 years was positively related to all prescribing rates other than aspirin, where they were positively related to the proportion of patients aged >75 years. However, prescribing rates for statins and ACE inhibitors were negatively associated with the proportion of patients aged >75 years in addition to the proportion of patients from minority ethnic groups. Prescribing rates for aspirin, bendrofluazide and all CHD drugs combined were negatively associated with deprivation. Conclusion Although around 25–50% of the variation in prescribing rates was explained by HCNIs, this varied markedly between PCTs and drug groups. Prescribing rates were generally characterised by both positive and negative associations with HCNIs, suggesting possible inequities in prescribing rates on the basis of ethnicity, deprivation and the proportion of patients aged over 75 years (for statins and ACE inhibitors, but not for aspirin)

Factors affecting acceptability of an email-based intervention to increase fruit and vegetable consumption

Background: Fresh Facts is a 30-day email-delivered intervention designed to increase the fruit and vegetable consumption of Australian young adults. This study investigated the extent to which the program was acceptable to members of the target audience and examined the relationships between participant and intervention characteristics, attrition, effectiveness, and acceptability ratings. Methods: Young adults were randomised to two levels of message frequency: high-frequency (n = 102), low-frequency (n = 173). Individuals in the high-frequency group received daily emails while individuals in the low-frequency group received an email every 3 days.Results: Individuals in the high-frequency group were more likely to indicate that they received too many emails than individuals in the low-frequency group. No other differences in acceptability were observed. Baseline beliefs about fruit and vegetables were an important predictor of intervention acceptability. In turn, acceptability was associated with a number of indicators of intervention success, including change in fruit and vegetable consumption. Conclusions: The findings highlight the importance of considering the relationship between these intervention and participant factors and acceptability in intervention design and evaluation. Results support the ongoing use of email-based interventions to target fruit and vegetable consumption within young adults. However, the relationships between beliefs about fruit and vegetable consumption and acceptability suggest that this intervention may be differentially effective depending on individual’s existing beliefs about fruit and vegetable consumption. As such, there is a pressing need to consider these factors in future research in order to minimize attrition and maximize intervention effectiveness when interventions are implemented outside of a research context

Obesity prevalence from a European perspective: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Obesity has been recognised as an important contributing factor in the development of various diseases, but comparative data on this condition are limited. We therefore aimed to identify and discuss current epidemiological data on the prevalence of obesity in European countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified relevant published studies by means of a MEDLINE search (1990–2008) supplemented by information obtained from regulatory agencies. We only included surveys that used direct measures of weight and height and were representative of each country's overall population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In Europe, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²) in men ranged from 4.0% to 28.3% and in women from 6.2% to 36.5%. We observed considerable geographic variation, with prevalence rates in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe being higher than those in Western and Northern Europe.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In Europe, obesity has reached epidemic proportions. The data presented in our review emphasise the need for effective therapeutic and preventive strategies.</p