Dataset Information

Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. In this trial, we aimed to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) in England.

Methods

In this randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose prescribing rate for antibiotics was in the top 20% for their National Health Service (NHS) Local Area Team. Eligible practices were randomly assigned (1:1) into two groups by computer-generated allocation sequence, stratified by NHS Local Area Team. Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment. On Sept 29, 2014, every GP in the feedback intervention group was sent a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer and a leaflet on antibiotics for use with patients. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team. GPs in the control group received no communication. The sample was re-randomised into two groups, and in December, 2014, GP practices were either sent patient-focused information that promoted reduced use of antibiotics or received no communication. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 weighted population, controlling for past prescribing. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN32349954, and has been completed.

Findings

Between Sept 8 and Sept 26, 2014, we recruited and assigned 1581 GP practices to feedback intervention (n=791) or control (n=790) groups. Letters were sent to 3227 GPs in the intervention group. Between October, 2014, and March, 2015, the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population was 126.98 (95% CI 125.68-128.27) in the feedback intervention group and 131.25 (130.33-132.16) in the control group, a difference of 4.27 (3.3%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.967 [95% CI 0.957-0.977]; p<0.0001), representing an estimated 73,406 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. In December, 2014, GP practices were re-assigned to patient-focused intervention (n=777) or control (n=804) groups. The patient-focused intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome measure between December, 2014, and March, 2015 (antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population: 135.00 [95% CI 133.77-136.22] in the patient-focused intervention group and 133.98 [133.06-134.90] in the control group; IRR for difference between groups 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; p=0.105).

Interpretation

Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and at national scale; this outcome makes it a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes.

Funding

Public Health England.

SUBMITTER: Hallsworth M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4842844 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Sending a social norms feedback letter to general practitioners who are high prescribers of antibiotics has been shown to reduce antibiotic prescribing. The 2017-9 Quality Premium for primary care in England sets a target for broad-spectrum prescribing, which should be at or below 10% of total antibiotic prescribing. We tested a social norm feedback letter that targeted broad-spectrum prescribing and the addition of a chart to a text-only letter that targeted overall prescribing. Methods We conducted three 2-armed randomised controlled trials, on different groups of practices: Trial A compared a broad-spectrum message and chart to the standard-practice overall prescribing letter (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was above 10% and who had relatively high overall prescribing). Trial C compared a broad-spectrum message and a chart to a no-letter control (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was above 10% and who had relatively moderate overall prescribing). Trial B compared an overall-prescribing message with a chart to the standard practice overall letter (practices whose percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing was below 10% but who had relatively high overall prescribing). Letters were posted to general practitioners, timed to be received on 1 November 2018. The primary outcomes were practices’ percentage of broad-spectrum prescribing (trials A and C) and overall antibiotic prescribing (trial B) each month from November 2018 to April 2019 (all weighted by the number and characteristics of patients registered in the practice). Results We randomly assigned 1909 practices; 58 closed or merged during the trial, leaving 1851 practices: 385 in trial A, 674 in trial C, and 792 in trial B. AR(1) models showed that there were no statistically significant differences in our primary outcome measures: trial A β = − .199, p = .13; trial C β = .006, p = .95; trial B β = − .0021, p = .81. In all three trials, there were statistically significant time trends, showing that overall antibiotic prescribing and total broad-spectrum prescribing were decreasing. Conclusion Our broad-spectrum feedback letters had no effect on broad-spectrum prescribing; adding a bar chart to a text-only letter had no effect on overall antibiotic prescribing. Broad-spectrum and overall prescribing were both decreasing over time. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03862794. March 5, 2019. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06373-y.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients. METHODS:Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65?years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods. RESULTS:It took 19?months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n =?17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550).

Project description:Treatment recommendations for prevention of type 2 diabetes complications often require radical and life-long health behaviour changes. Observational studies based on Self-determination theory (SDT) propose substantial factors for the maintenance of behaviour changes and concomitant well-being, but experimental research is needed to develop and evaluate SDT-based interventions. The aims of this paper were to describe 1) the design of a trial assessing the effectiveness of a training course for practice-nurses in autonomy support on patient-perceived motivation, HbA1, cholesterol, and well-being among a diabetes population, 2) the actual intervention to a level of detail that allows its replication, and 3) the connection between SDT recommendations for health care-provider behaviour and the content of the training course.The study is a cluster-randomised pragmatic trial including 40 Danish general practices with nurse-led diabetes consultations, and the associated diabetes population. The diabetes population was identified by registers (n = 4034).The intervention was a 16-hour course with interactive training for practice nurses. The course was delivered over 4 afternoons at Aarhus University and one 1/2 hour visit to the practice by one of the course-teachers over a period of 10 months (0, 2, 5, 10 mths.). The intervention is depicted by a PaT Plot showing the timeline and the characteristics of the intervention components.Effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed on the diabetes populations with regard to well-being (PAID, SF-12), HbA1c- and cholesterol-levels, perceived autonomy support (HCCQ), type of motivation (TSRQ), and perceived competence for diabetes care (PCD) 15-21 months after the core course; the completion of the second course afternoon. Data will be retrieved from registers and by questionnaires.Challenges and advantages of the pragmatic design are discussed. In a real-world setting, this study will determine the impact on motivation, HbA1c, cholesterol, and well-being for people with diabetes by offering a training course in autonomy support to practice-nurses from general practices with nurse-led consultations.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01187069.

Project description:BackgroundChanging demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.MethodsA multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.ResultsMedian number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).ConclusionThe pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Project description:IntroductionCervical cancer screening in general practice could be a routine moment to provide female smokers with stop smoking advice and support. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a stop smoking strategy delivered by trained practice assistants after the cervical smear, and to evaluate the implementation process.Methods and analysisThe study is a two-arm, pragmatic cluster randomised trial, in Dutch general practice. Randomisation takes place 1:1 at the level of the general practice. Practices either deliver the SUCCESS stop smoking strategy or the usual care condition. The strategy consists of brief stop smoking advice based on the Ask-Advise-Connect method and is conducted by trained practice assistants after routine cervical cancer screening. The primary outcome is the performance of a serious quit attempt in the 6 months after screening. Secondary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence abstinence, reduction in the number of cigarettes per day and transition in motivation to quit smoking. Follow-up for these measurements takes place after 6 months. Analysis on the primary outcome aims to detect a 10% difference between treatment arms (0.80 power, p=0.05, using a one-sided test), and will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. The process evaluation will assess feasibility, acceptability and barriers or enablers to the strategy's implementation. For this purpose, both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected via questionnaires and in-depth interviews, respectively, in both individual study participants and involved staff.Ethics and disseminationThe Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport approved of the trial after an advisory report from the Health Council (Nr. 2018/17). A licence was provided to conduct the study under the Population Screening Act. Study results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNL5052 (NTR7451).

Project description:BackgroundAlthough absolute risk of death associated with raised blood pressure increases with age, the benefits of treatment are greater in older patients. However, fewer patients in this group are identified, treated, and controlled.AimTo evaluate the impact of the provision of different levels of feedback on identification, treatment, and control of older patients with hypertension.Design of studyRandomised controlled trial.SettingFifty-two Scottish general practices.MethodPractices were randomly allocated to either control (n = 19), audit only feedback (n = 16), or audit plus risk feedback, prioritising patients by absolute risk (n = 17). Electronic data were extracted from practice computer systems annually from 1999 to 2001 and used to develop feedback. Data were collected for 30 345 patients aged 65-79 years.ResultsThe majority of known patients with hypertension in each group had an initial blood pressure recorded (control = 89.6%; audit = 80.4%; risk = 96.1%) and this increased over the study period (control = 92.3%; audit = 86.0%; risk = 96.6%). Initially, more than 80% of patients in each group were treated but many were uncontrolled (blood pressure >/=160/ >/=90 mmHg) (control = 41.5%; audit = 41.3%; risk = 36.1%). The numbers of untreated and uncontrolled patients in each group reduced (control = 32.3%; audit = 38.3%; risk = 32.6%). There was some evidence of a significant difference in mean systolic pressure between the audit plus risk and audit only groups: (149.6 versus 152.7 mmHg; P = 0.019) and of significantly greater control in the audit plus risk group compared with the other groups 49.4% (versus audit only = 35.4%; versus control = 46.5%; odds ratio = 1.72 [95% confidence interval = 1.09 to 2.70]; P = 0.019).ConclusionsLevels of identification, treatment, and control improved in each group. Although there were still significant numbers of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, there is some evidence to suggest that providing patient-specific feedback may have a positive impact on identification and management of hypertension in older people and produce an increase in control.

Project description:BackgroundContinuity of care, in particular personal continuity, is a core principle of general practice and is associated with many benefits such as a better patient-provider relationship and lower mortality. However, personal continuity is under pressure due to changes in society and healthcare. This affects older patients more than younger patients. As the number of older patients will double the coming decades, an intervention to optimise personal continuity for this group is highly warranted.MethodsFollowing the UK Medical Research Council framework for complex Interventions, we will develop and evaluate an intervention to optimise personal continuity for older patients in general practice. In phase 0, we will perform a literature study to provide the theoretical basis for the intervention. In phase I we will define the components of the intervention by performing surveys and focus groups among patients, general practitioners, practice assistants and practice nurses, concluded by a Delphi study among members of our group. In phase II, we will test and finalise the intervention with input from a pilot study in two general practices. In phase III, we will perform a stepped wedge cluster randomised pragmatic trial. The primary outcome measure is continuity of care from the patients' perspective, measured by the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures are level of implementation, barriers and facilitators for implementation, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. In phase IV, we will establish the conditions for large-scale implementation.DiscussionThis is the first study to investigate an intervention for improving personal continuity for older patients in general practice. If proven effective, our intervention will enable General practitioners to improve the quality of care for their increasing population of older patients. The pragmatic design of the study will enable evaluation in real-life conditions, facilitating future implementation.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register, trial NL8132 . Registered 2 November 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dentists prescribe approximately 10% of antibiotics dispensed in UK community pharmacies. Despite clear clinical guidance, dentists often prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This cluster-randomised controlled trial used routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) dental prescribing and treatment claim data to compare the impact of individualised audit and feedback (A&F) interventions on dentists' antibiotic prescribing rates. METHODS AND FINDINGS:All 795 antibiotic prescribing NHS general dental practices in Scotland were included. Practices were randomised to the control (practices = 163; dentists = 567) or A&F intervention group (practices = 632; dentists = 1,999). A&F intervention practices were allocated to one of two A&F groups: (1) individualised graphical A&F comprising a line graph plotting an individual dentist's monthly antibiotic prescribing rate (practices = 316; dentists = 1,001); or (2) individualised graphical A&F plus a written behaviour change message synthesising and reiterating national guidance recommendations for dental antibiotic prescribing (practices = 316; dentists = 998). Intervention practices were also simultaneously randomised to receive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the graphical A&F plotting the monthly antibiotic prescribing rate of all dentists in the health board; and (ii) delivered at 0 and 6 mo or at 0, 6, and 9 mo, giving a total of eight intervention groups. The primary outcome, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antibiotic items dispensed per 100 NHS treatment claims over the 12 mo post-delivery of the baseline A&F. Primary outcome data was available for 152 control practices (dentists = 438) and 609 intervention practices (dentists = 1,550). At baseline, the number of antibiotic items prescribed per 100 NHS treatment claims was 8.3 in the control group and 8.5 in the intervention group. At follow-up, antibiotic prescribing had decreased by 0.4 antibiotic items per 100 NHS treatment claims in control practices and by 1.0 in intervention practices. This represents a significant reduction (-5.7%; 95% CI -10.2% to -1.1%; p = 0.01) in dentists' prescribing rate in the intervention group relative to the control group. Intervention subgroup analyses found a 6.1% reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists who had received the written behaviour change message relative to dentists who had not (95% CI -10.4% to -1.9%; p = 0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the prescribing rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI -8.6% to 0.1%; p = 0.06), nor between dentists who received A&F at 0 and 6 mo relative to those who received A&F at 0, 6, and 9 mo (0.02%; 95% CI -4.2% to 4.2%; p = 0.99). The key limitations relate to the use of routinely collected datasets which did not allow evaluation of any effects on inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS:A&F derived from routinely collected datasets led to a significant reduction in the antibiotic prescribing rate of dentists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49204710.

Project description:BackgroundEffective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control).Methods and findingsThis pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices.ConclusionsFindings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.Trial registrationACTRN12616000888460.