Skip to main content
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1991 Feb;41(343):67–71.

Use of regression analysis to explain the variation in prescribing rates and costs between family practitioner committees.

D P Forster 1, C E Frost 1
PMCID: PMC1371554  PMID: 2031739

Abstract

There are proposals to set up prescribing budgets for family practitioner committees (now family health services authorities) and indicative prescribing amounts for practices. An intelligible model is therefore required for specifying budgetary allocations. Regression analyses were used to explain the variation in prescription rates and costs between the 98 family practitioner committees of England and Wales in 1987. Fifty one per cent of the variation in prescription rates and 44% of the variation in prescription costs per patient could be explained by variations in the age-sex structure of family practitioner committees. The standardized mortality ratio for all causes and patients in 1987, and the number of general practice principals per 1000 population in 1987, but not the Jarman under-privileged area score were found to improve the predictive power of the regression models significantly (P less than 0.01). The predictions of the model for the 10 family practitioner committees with the highest and lowest prescription rates or costs are reported and discussed. Potential improvements in models of prescribing behaviour may be thwarted by two problems. First, the paucity of readily available data on health care need at family practitioner committee and practice levels, and secondly, the increasing complexity in the statistical techniques required may render the procedure less intelligible, meaningful and negotiable in a contentious field.

Full text

PDF

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Foy C., Hutchinson A., Smyth J. Providing census data for general practice. 2. Usefulness. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1987 Oct;37(303):451–454. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Godfrey K. Simple linear regression in medical research. N Engl J Med. 1985 Dec 26;313(26):1629–1636. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198512263132604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hart J. T. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971 Feb 27;1(7696):405–412. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92410-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hutchinson A., Foy C., Smyth J. Providing census data for general practice. 1. Feasibility. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1987 Oct;37(303):448–450. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jarman B. Identification of underprivileged areas. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 28;286(6379):1705–1709. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6379.1705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Spencer J. A., van Zwanenberg T. D. Prescribing research: PACT to the future. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989 Jul;39(324):270–272. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES