@article { , title = {Clinical and cost effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3 month vs. 28 day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling}, abstract = {Background: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. Design/data sources: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with}, doi = {10.3310/hta21780}, eissn = {1366-5278}, issn = {1366-5278}, issue = {78}, journal = {Health Technology Assessment}, note = {No embargo. OL 04.01. 2018}, publicationstatus = {Published}, publisher = {NIHR Journals Library}, url = {https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/901562}, volume = {21}, year = {2017}, author = {Miani, Céline and Martin, Adam and Exley, Josephine and Doble, Brett and Wilson, Ed and Payne, Rupert and Avery, Anthony and Meads, Catherine and Kirtley, Anne and Morgan Jones, Molly and King, Sarah} }