Skip Navigation



Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on September 15, 2009
Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdp087
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, D.M.
Right arrow Articles by Miles, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fleming, D.M.
Right arrow Articles by Miles, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009, Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved

The representativeness of sentinel practice networks{dagger}


D.M. Fleming, Director
J. Miles, Research Centre Manager

The Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, Birmingham B17 9DB, UK


Address correspondence to D.M. Fleming, E-mail: dfleming{at}rcgpbhamresunit.nhs.uk


  Abstract

Background The representativeness of practice networks is important when using the information obtained to guide health policy.

Aim To develop a model for examining the representativeness of practice networks.

Methods Comparison of surveyed population, practice structure and prescribing characteristics with the national data using the Weekly Returns Service (WRS) for 2006 as an example of practice network. The population monitored was compared with the national PCT population. The practice postcode was linked to the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the distribution compared with the national equivalents. Doctor and practice-specific structural data (obtained by questionnaire) and practice-prescribing data were compared with the national equivalents. The significance of differences was evaluated using non-parametric tests.

Results The WRS population was closely matched with the national data by age, gender and deprivation index. Compared with the national equivalents, WRS practices, included more younger GPs, had a larger average list per GP and fewer practices with a list of less than 1499 per GP. Prescribing patterns were similar to their PCT equivalents excepting for small reductions of antibacterial prescribing (items 7% and cost 5%).

Conclusion We demonstrate a low-cost model methodology for examining the representativeness of practice networks using independent data with minimum practice input.

Keywords: epidemiology, health impact assessment, primary care

{dagger} A model study of practice representativeness based on the Weekly Returns Service of the Royal College of General Practitioners.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.