Back

Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in antibiotic prescribing for common infections in English primary care: a population-based study

Yang, M.; Nguyen, V. N.; Walker, A. S.; Robotham, J. V.; van Leeuwen, E.; Hayward, G.; Butler, C. C.; Pouwels, K. B.

2026-05-27 health economics
10.64898/2026.05.26.26354118 medRxiv
Show abstract

OBJECTIVES To quantify socioeconomic inequalities in antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care, and assess whether these inequalities arise from differences in consultation frequency, prescribing behaviour, or variation in vaccination uptake, smoking, and body mass index. DESIGN Population based cohort study. SETTING Primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, England. PARTICIPANTS 17,195,399 children and adults estimated to have been registered with a general practice in 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Antibiotic prescribing rates (prescriptions per person-year), consultation rates (consultations per person-year), and probability of receiving an antibiotic prescription following consultation. RESULTS Higher deprivation was associated with higher antibiotic prescribing rates for most respiratory tract indications. In children, prescribing rates were 44.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.9% to 47.7%) higher for upper respiratory tract infections and 47.6% (95% CI 44.2% to 51.3%) higher for lower respiratory tract infections in the most versus least deprived twentile. In adults, prescribing rates for lower respiratory tract infections were 22.7% (95% CI 21.4% to 24.1%) higher in the most deprived twentile. Prescribing rates for other indications showed weak, U-shaped, or negative associations with deprivation. Prescribing inequalities were primarily driven by inequalities in consultation rates rather than probability of receiving antibiotics once consulted. Lower influenza vaccination uptake partly accounted for higher consultation rates for respiratory infections among more deprived children, while smoking prevalence contributed to inequalities among adults. CONCLUSIONS Socioeconomic inequalities in antibiotic prescribing vary by indication type and are largely explained by consultation frequency. Reducing inequalities may require interventions that decrease the need to consult, e.g. improving influenza vaccination coverage in children and reducing smoking among adults, rather than focussing solely on prescribing behaviour.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.1%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.1%
3
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.2%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
5
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.0%
7
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
9
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
11
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
18
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
20
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
23
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
24
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
25
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
26
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
27
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
28
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
29
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
30
Addiction
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%