Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Persell SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4975897 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial.
Persell Stephen D SD Doctor Jason N JN Friedberg Mark W MW Meeker Daniella D Friesema Elisha E Cooper Andrew A Haryani Ajay A Gregory Dyanna L DL Fox Craig R CR Goldstein Noah J NJ Linder Jeffrey A JA
BMC infectious diseases 20160805
<h4>Background</h4>Clinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial.<h4>Methods</h4>Primary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Be ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceInterventions based on behavioral science might reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.ObjectiveTo assess effects of behavioral interventions and rates of inappropriate (not guideline-concordant) antibiotic prescribing during ambulatory visits for acute respiratory tract infections.Design, setting, and participantsCluster randomized clinical trial conducted among 47 primary care practices in Boston and Los Angeles. Participants were 248 enrolled clinicians randomized to receive 0, 1, 2, or 3 interventions for 18 months. All clinicians received education on antibiotic prescribing guidelines on enrollment. Interventions began between November 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012. Follow-up for the latest-starting sites ended on April 1, 2014. Adult patients with comorbidities and concomitant infections were excluded.InterventionsThree behavioral interventions, implemented alone or in combination: suggested alternatives presented electronic order sets suggesting nonantibiotic treatments; accountable justification prompted clinicians to enter free-text justifications for prescribing antibiotics into patients' electronic health records; peer comparison sent emails to clinicians that compared their antibiotic prescribing rates with those of "top performers" (those with the lowest inappropriate prescribing rates).Main outcomes and measuresAntibiotic prescribing rates for visits with antibiotic-inappropriate diagnoses (nonspecific upper respiratory tract infections, acute bronchitis, and influenza) from 18 months preintervention to 18 months afterward, adjusting each intervention's effects for co-occurring interventions and preintervention trends, with random effects for practices and clinicians.ResultsThere were 14,753 visits (mean patient age, 47 years; 69% women) for antibiotic-inappropriate acute respiratory tract infections during the baseline period and 16,959 visits (mean patient age, 48 years; 67% women) during the intervention period. Mean antibiotic prescribing rates decreased from 24.1% at intervention start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives (difference in differences, -5.0% [95% CI, -7.8% to 0.1%]; P = .66 for differences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justification (difference in differences, -7.0% [95% CI, -9.1% to -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (difference in differences, -5.2% [95% CI, -6.9% to -1.6%]; P < .001). There were no statistically significant interactions (neither synergy nor interference) between interventions.Conclusions and relevanceAmong primary care practices, the use of accountable justification and peer comparison as behavioral interventions resulted in lower rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01454947.
| S-EPMC6689234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInappropriate use of antibiotics to treat gonorrhoea can lead to antibiotic resistance. Education programmes may be helpful for improving physician prescribing behaviours in accordance with treatment guidelines. As traditional education based on printed materials may have limited effect on guideline-based treatment, innovative education strategies are needed. The current trial aims to assess the effectiveness of a novel education intervention to increase guideline-based treatment of gonorrhoea in China.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-arm cluster randomised control trial at 144 hospitals (clusters) in eight Chinese provinces. The intervention will include an online training video developed on the WenJuanXing platform that covers workflows and requirements for managing a patient with uncomplicated gonorrhoea. Outpatient physicians in dermatology (dermatovenerology), urology, andrology and gynaecology will be given access to the video via a quick response code. In hospitals allocated to the control arm, physicians will continue to participate in their standard of care training programme. The primary outcome is the proportion of gonorrhoea antibiotic prescriptions adherent to Chinese national guidelines at the cluster level. In addition, to understand the reasons of physician's non-adherence to the intervention by conducting a questionnaire survey will be considered as the secondary outcome of the study.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Institute of Dermatology (2020-LS-004). All physicians will provide an informed consent prior to participating in the study. Findings of the trial will be disseminated through conferences and peer-reviewed journals, and will be used to develop training programmes for physicians.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000029591.
| S-EPMC7359379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTrials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.ResultsNine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies.ConclusionsHigh-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.
| S-EPMC7825381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections at the primary care level represents the major source of antibiotic misuse in healthcare, and is a major driver for antimicrobial resistance worldwide. In this study we will develop, pilot and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship programme in China's primary care hospitals to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections among all ages.MethodsWe will use a parallel-group, cluster-randomised, controlled, superiority trial with blinded outcome evaluation but unblinded treatment (providers and patients). We will randomise 34 primary care hospitals from two counties within Guangdong province into the intervention and control arm (1:1 overall ratio) stratified by county (8:9 within-county ratio). In the control arm, antibiotic prescribing and management will continue through usual care. In the intervention arm, we will implement an antibiotic stewardship programme targeting family physicians and patients/caregivers. The family physician components include: (1) training using new operational guidelines, (2) improved management and peer-review of antibiotic prescribing, (3) improved electronic medical records and smart phone app facilitation. The patient/caregiver component involves patient education via family physicians, leaflets and videos. The primary outcome is the proportion of prescriptions for acute respiratory infections (excluding pneumonia) that contain any antibiotic(s). Secondary outcomes will address how frequently specific classes of antibiotics are prescribed, how frequently key non-antibiotic alternatives are prescribed and the costs of consultations. We will conduct a qualitative process evaluation to explore operational questions regarding acceptability, cultural appropriateness and burden of technology use, as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis and a long-term benefit evaluation. The duration of the intervention will be 12 months, with another 24 months' post-trial long-term follow-up.DiscussionOur study is one of the first trials to evaluate the effect of an antibiotic stewardship programme in primary care settings in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC). All interventional activities will be designed to be embedded into routine primary care with strong local ownership. Through the trial we intend to impact on clinical practice and national policy in antibiotic prescription for primary care facilities in rural China and other LMICs.Trial registrationISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN96892547. Registered on 18 August 2019.
| S-EPMC7216131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWatchful waiting management for acute otitis media (AOM), where an antibiotic is used only if the child's symptoms worsen or do not improve over the subsequent 2-3 days, is an effective approach to reduce antibiotic exposure for children with AOM. However, studies to compare the effectiveness of interventions to promote watchful waiting are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of two pragmatic, patient-centered interventions designed to facilitate use of watchful waiting in clinical practice.MethodsThis will be a cluster-randomized trial utilizing a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Thirty-three primary care or urgent care clinics will be randomized to one of two interventions: a health systems-level intervention alone or a health systems-level intervention combined with use of a shared decision-making aid. The health systems-level intervention will include engagement of a clinician champion at each clinic, changes to electronic health record antibiotic orders to facilitate delayed antibiotic prescriptions as part of a watchful waiting strategy, quarterly feedback reports detailing clinicians' use of watchful waiting individually and compared with peers, and virtual learning sessions for clinicians. The hybrid intervention will include the health systems-level intervention plus a shared decision-making aid designed to inform decision-making between parents and clinicians with best available evidence. The primary outcomes will be whether an antibiotic was ultimately taken by the child and parent satisfaction with their child's care. We will explore the differences in implementation effectiveness by patient population served, clinic type, clinical setting, and organization. The fidelity, acceptability, and perceived appropriateness of the interventions among different clinician types, patient populations, and clinical settings will be compared. We will also conduct formative qualitative interviews and surveys with clinicians and administrators, focus groups and surveys of parents of patients with AOM, and engagement of two stakeholder advisory councils to further inform the interventions.DiscussionThis study will compare the effectiveness of two pragmatic interventions to promote use of watchful waiting for children with AOM to reduce antibiotic exposure and increase parent satisfaction, thus informing national antibiotic stewardship policy development.Clinical trial registrationNCT06034080.
| S-EPMC10807124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate use of antibiotics promotes antibiotic resistance. Little is known about physician characteristics that may be associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Our objective was to assess whether physician knowledge, time in practice, place of training and practice volume explain the differences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians.MethodsA historical cohort of 852 primary care physicians in Quebec who became certified between 1990 and 1993 was followed for their first 6-9 years of practice (1990-1998). We evaluated whether inappropriate antibiotic prescribing had occurred during the study period (1990-1998) for viral (prescription of antibiotics) and bacterial (prescription of second-or third-line antibiotics given orally) infections. We used logistic regression to estimate the independent contributions of time in practice, practice volume, place of medical training and scores on licensure examinations. Physician sex and visit setting were controlled for, as were patient age, sex, education, income and geographic area of residence.ResultsA total of 104 230 patients who received a diagnosis of a viral infection and 65 304 who received a diagnosis of a bacterial infection were included in our study. International medical graduates were more likely than University of Montréal graduates to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (risk ratio [RR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.44). Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing increased with time in practice. Physicians with a high practice volume were more likely than those with low practice volume to prescribe antibiotics for viral respiratory infections (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48) and to prescribe second-and third-line antibiotics as first-line treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.37). Physician scores on licensure examinations were not predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.InterpretationInternational medical graduates, physicians with high-volume practices and those who were in practice longer were more likely to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. Developing effective interventions will require increased knowledge of the mechanisms that underlie these predictors of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.
| S-EPMC1995156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IMPORTANCE:"Nudges" that influence decision making through subtle cognitive mechanisms have been shown to be highly effective in a wide range of applications, but there have been few experiments to improve clinical practice. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the use of a behavioral "nudge" based on the principle of public commitment in encouraging the judicious use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Randomized clinical trial in 5 outpatient primary care clinics. A total of 954 adults had ARI visits during the study timeframe: 449 patients were treated by clinicians randomized to the posted commitment letter (335 in the baseline period, 114 in the intervention period); 505 patients were treated by clinicians randomized to standard practice control (384 baseline, 121 intervention). INTERVENTIONS:The intervention consisted of displaying poster-sized commitment letters in examination rooms for 12 weeks. These letters, featuring clinician photographs and signatures, stated their commitment to avoid inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Antibiotic prescribing rates for antibiotic-inappropriate ARI diagnoses in baseline and intervention periods, adjusted for patient age, sex, and insurance status. RESULTS:Baseline rates were 43.5% and 42.8% for control and poster, respectively. During the intervention period, inappropriate prescribing rates increased to 52.7% for controls but decreased to 33.7% in the posted commitment letter condition. Controlling for baseline prescribing rates, we found that the posted commitment letter resulted in a 19.7 absolute percentage reduction in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rate relative to control (P?=?.02). There was no evidence of diagnostic coding shift, and rates of appropriate antibiotic prescriptions did not diminish over time. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Displaying poster-sized commitment letters in examination rooms decreased inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs. The effect of this simple, low-cost intervention is comparable in magnitude to costlier, more intensive quality-improvement efforts. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01767064.
| S-EPMC4648560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antibiotic use contributes significantly to the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. While government-initiated population-level interventions are fundamental in addressing this issue, their full potential remains to be explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use among antibiotic providers and users in healthcare and community settings.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic literature search across multiple databases and grey literature sources. We will include studies which evaluate the effectiveness of population-level interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in healthcare and community settings in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. This includes government-initiated measures targeting antibiotic use through education, restriction, incentivization, coercion, training, persuasion, context modification, behavior modeling, or barrier reduction. Two reviewers will independently perform screening to select eligible studies, followed by data extraction. The outcomes of interest are various measures of antibiotic prescription and consumption, such as Defined Daily Dose (DDD) or number of prescriptions per year. We anticipate including a broad range of study designs and outcome measures. Therefore, we will narratively synthesize results using the categories of the population-level policy interventions of the Behavior Change Wheel Framework. We will organize outcome data by economic contexts, target populations, and implementation settings.DiscussionThis review will strengthen the evidence base for the use of population-level interventions to address inappropriate antibiotic use. Drawing lessons from global experiences, the findings will provide valuable guidance to health policymakers, public health authorities, and researchers on tailoring interventions to specific economic contexts, populations, and settings, thereby enhancing their capacity to drive substantial improvement in appropriate antibiotic use.
| S-EPMC10947694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prior work has demonstrated that personalized letters are effective at reducing opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing, but it is unclear whether If/when-then planning prompts would enhance this effect. We conducted a decedent-clustered trial which randomized 541 clinicians in Los Angeles County to receive a standard (n = 284), or comparator (n = 257) version of a letter with If/when-then prompts. We found a significant 12.85% (6.83%, 18.49%) and 8.32% (2.34%, 13.93%) decrease in the primary outcomes morphine (MME) and diazepam milligram equivalents (DME), respectively. This study confirms the benefit of planning prompts, and repeat letter exposure among clinicians with poor patient outcomes. Limitations include lack of generalizability and small sample size. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03856593.
| S-EPMC10786898 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hospitalized patients frequently have urinary catheters inserted for inappropriate reasons. This can lead to urinary tract infections and other complications.To assess whether stop orders for indwelling urinary catheters reduces the duration of inappropriate urinary catheterization and the incidence of urinary tract infections.A randomized controlled trial was conducted in three tertiary-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Patients with indwelling urinary catheters were randomized to prewritten orders for the removal of urinary catheters if specified criteria were not present or to usual care.Six hundred ninety-two hospitalized patients admitted to hospital with indwelling urinary catheters inserted for < or = 48 h.The main outcomes included days of inappropriate indwelling catheter use, total days of catheter use, frequency of urinary tract infection, and catheter reinsertions.There were fewer days of inappropriate and total urinary catheter use in the stop-order group than in the usual care group (difference -1.69 [95% CI -1.23 to -2.15], P < 0.001 and -1.34 days, [95% CI, -0.64 to -2.05 days], P < 0.001, respectively). Urinary tract infections occurred in 19.0% of the stop-order group and 20.2% of the usual care group, relative risk 0.94 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33), P = 0.71. Catheter reinsertion occurred in 8.6% of the stop-order group and 7.0% in the usual care group, relative risk 1.23 (95% CI, 0.72 to 2.11), P = 0.45.Stop orders for urinary catheterization safely reduced duration of inappropriate urinary catheterization in hospitalized patients but did not reduce urinary tract infections.
| S-EPMC2517898 | biostudies-literature