Ibuprofen versus other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: use in general practice and patient perception.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether ibuprofen was as well-regarded by patients as other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Questionnaire sent to 1137 consecutive recipients of an NSAID prescription from 21 doctors in six general practices with computerized records. Patient responses were subsequently linked to data held on the practice records. SETTING: General practices in and around Nottingham, selected to reflect local variations in number of partners, list size, geographical location, deprivation, prescribing burden and prescribing rate. SUBJECTS: Unselected patients receiving NSAIDs prescribed for all indications for use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, possible drug related adverse events, patients' overall satisfaction with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs, factors associated with choice of ibuprofen, drug costs of ibuprofen and other NSAIDs. RESULTS: The main NSAIDs used were ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen. Ibuprofen use ranged from 1.0% of prescriptions in one practice to 69.1% in another. Although ibuprofen was generally prescribed in low doses, it was perceived by patients as being as effective as the other NSAIDs used, even after allowing for severity of the pre-treatment condition. Overall, 50.5% of patients rated their NSAID the best treatment they had received for their condition with no differences between individual drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen is as highly regarded as other NSAIDs when used in similar circumstances. Switching patients to ibuprofen may be a realistic way of reducing financial and medical costs associated with NSAIDs.

Pharmacoepidemiology of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in Nottingham general practices.

AIM: To investigate the pharmacoepidemiology of NSAID usage in Nottingham general practices. DESIGN: Questionnaire sent to 1137 consecutive recipients of an NSAID prescription from 21 doctors in six general practices with computerized records. Patient responses were subsequently linked to data held on the practice records. SETTING: General practices in and around Nottingham, selected to reflect local variations in number of partners, list size, geographical location, deprivation, prescribing burden and prescribing rate. SUBJECTS: Unselected patients receiving NSAIDs prescribed for all indications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Indication for treatment, differences in prescribing to different age groups, compliance and overall scheme drug exposure, drug effectiveness and tolerability, possible drug-related adverse events, patients' overall satisfaction with treatment and estimated costs of care. RESULTS: NSAIDs were used for a wide range of conditions and only a small number of patients had rheumatoid arthritis. The main drugs used were ibuprofen, diclofenac and naproxen. Patients making short-term use of NSAIDs had low compliance if they experienced adverse drug effects, whilst conversely in long-term users, those with high compliance reported more adverse drug effects. Calculated compliance did not vary with age although older patients (over 65 years) claimed in their questionnaires to be more compliant than younger patients. Half the patients reported good or complete symptom relief. Half of those questions (and two thirds of those with good or complete symptom relief) rated their NSAID as the best treatment they had received for their current condition. The frequency of gastrointestinal adverse events was higher in the young and the old, which correlated with the use of anti-ulcer drugs, and increased with the total number of medications used. CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs are used for a wide-range of conditions. They give symptom relief to, and are perceived as effective by, most patients taking them.

Three faces of integrative coordination: a model of interorganizational relations in community-based health and human services.

OBJECTIVE: This study develops a theoretically justified, network-based model of integrative coordination in community-based health and human services, and it uses this model to measure and compare coordination in six elder service systems. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We collected data between 1989 and 1991 in six Alabama counties, including two major MSAs, two small MSAs, and two rural areas. STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Our measurement of coordination is based on patterns of interorganizational relationships connecting the agencies constituting a community-based health and human services system. Within each site, we interviewed representatives from these agencies, asking them to indicate client referral, generalized support, and agenda-setting relationships they had developed with each of the other agencies in the system. Using network analysis procedures we then identified the network associated with each of these organizational functions (i.e., service delivery, administration, and planning) in each site, and we assessed levels of coordination in each network. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our measure of integrative coordination is consistent with other indicators of coordination we derive from our data, suggesting its validity. In addition, levels of integrative coordination across sites for each organizational function are generally comparable. Comparisons across sites show integrative coordination to be consistently highest for service delivery networks and lowest for planning networks. CONCLUSIONS: Previous attempts to assess interorganizational coordination without regard to organizational function are subject to misinterpretation. The differing interorganizational dynamics involved in service delivery, administration, and planning appear to generate different patterns of interorganizational relationships, and different levels of coordination.