Dataset Information

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To explore perceptions of illness, the decisions to consult and the acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions and self-help treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). DESIGN:Qualitative semistructured interview study. SETTING:UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS:20 adult patients who had been participating in the 'PIPS' (Pragmatic Ibuprofen Paracetamol and Steam) trial in the South of England. METHOD:Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with participants to explore their experiences and views on various treatments for RTI. RESULTS:Participants had concerns about symptoms that were not clinically serious and were mostly unaware of the natural history of RTIs, but were aware of the limitations of antibiotics and did not expect them with every consultation. Most viewed delayed prescriptions positively and had no strong preference over which technique is used to deliver the delayed antibiotic, but some patients received mixed messages, such as being told their infection was viral then being given an antibiotic, or were sceptical about the rationale. Participants disliked self-help treatments that involved taking medication and were particularly concerned about painkillers in combination. Steam inhalation was viewed as only moderately helpful for mild symptoms. CONCLUSION:Delayed prescribing is acceptable no matter how the delay is operationalised, but explanation of the rationale is needed and care taken to minimise mixed messages about the severity of illnesses and causation by viruses or bacteria. Better access is needed to good natural history information, and the signs and symptoms requiring or not requiring general practitioner advice. Significant concerns about paracetamol, ibuprofen and steam inhalation are likely to need careful exploration in the consultation.

SUBMITTER: McDermott L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5719297 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care.

McDermott Lisa L Leydon Geraldine M GM Halls Amy A Kelly Jo J Nagle Amanda A White Jennifer J Little Paul P

BMJ open 20171126 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore perceptions of illness, the decisions to consult and the acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions and self-help treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs).<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative semistructured interview study.<h4>Setting</h4>UK primary care.<h4>Participants</h4>20 adult patients who had been participating in the 'PIPS' (Pragmatic Ibuprofen Paracetamol and Steam) trial in the South of England.<h4>Method</h4>Semistructured telephone interviews were ...[more]

PMID: 29180593

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore parents' perspectives, concerns and experiences of the management of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children in primary care. DESIGN:Qualitative semistructured interview study. SETTING:UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS:23 parents of children aged 6?months to 10 years presenting with LRTI in primary care. METHOD:Thematic analysis of semistructured interviews (either in person or by telephone) conducted with parents to explore their experiences and views on their children being prescribed antibiotics for LRTI. RESULTS:Four major themes were identified and these are perspectives on: (1) infection, (2) antibiotic use, (3) the general practitioner (GP) appointment and (4) decision making around prescribing. Symptomatic relief was a key concern: the most troublesome symptoms were cough, breathing difficulty, fever and malaise. Many parents were reluctant to use self-care medication, tended to support antibiotic use and believed they are effective for symptoms, illness duration and for preventing complications. However, parental expectations varied from a desire for reassurance and advice to an explicit preference for an antibiotic prescription. These preferences were shaped by: (1) the age of the child, with younger children perceived as more vulnerable because of their greater difficulty in communicating, and concerns about rapid deterioration; (2) the perceived severity of the illness; and (3) disruption to daily routine. When there was disagreement with the GP, parents described feeling dismissed, and they were critical of inconsistent prescribing when they reconsult. When agreement between the parent and the doctor featured, parents described a feeling of relief and legitimation for consulting, feeling reassured that the illness did indeed warrant a doctor's attention. CONCLUSION:Symptomatic relief is a major concern for parents. Careful exploration of expectations, and eliciting worries about key symptoms and impact on daily life will be needed to help parents understand when a no antibiotic recommendation or delayed antibiotic recommendation is made.

Project description:BackgroundTo understand attitudes and behaviours of adolescents towards antibiotics, antimicrobial resistance and respiratory tract infections.DesignQualitative approach informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were undertaken. We aimed to inform the development of an intervention in an international setting to improve antibiotic use among adolescents; therefore on completion of thematic analysis, findings were triangulated with qualitative data from similar studies in France, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus to elucidate differences in the behaviour change model and adaptation to diverse contexts.Setting7 educational establishments from the south of England.Participants53 adolescents (16-18 years) participated in seven focus groups and 21 participated in interviews.ResultsMost participants had taken antibiotics and likened them to other common medications such as painkillers; they reported that their peers treat antibiotics like a 'cure-all' and that they themselves were not interested in antibiotics as a discussion topic. They demonstrated low knowledge of the difference between viral and bacterial infections.Participants self-cared for colds and flu but believed antibiotics are required to treat other RTIs such as tonsillitis, which they perceived as more 'serious'. Past history of taking antibiotics for RTIs instilled the belief that antibiotics were required for future RTIs. Those who characterised themselves as 'non-science students' were less informed about antibiotics and AMR. Most participants felt that AMR was irrelevant to them and their peers. Some 'non-science' students thought resistance was a property of the body, rather than bacteria.ConclusionAddressing adolescents' misperceptions about antibiotics and the treatment of RTIs using a behaviour change intervention should help improve antibiotic awareness and may break the cycle of patient demand for antibiotics to treat RTIs amongst this group. Schools should consider educating all students in further education about antibiotic usage and AMR, not only those taking science.

Project description:To investigate the effect of the H1N1 influenza pandemic on the public's expectations for a general practice consultation and antibiotic for acute respiratory illness.Mixed methods.Qualitative interviews: 17 participants with acute respiratory tract infection (RTI) visiting English pharmacies. Face-to-face survey: about 1700 adults aged 15?years and older were recruited from households in England in January 2008, 2009 and 2011.The qualitative data indicated that the general public had either forgotten about the 'swine flu' (H1N1 influenza) pandemic or it did not concern them as it had not affected them directly or affected their management of their current RTI illness. Between 2009 and 2011, we found that there was little or no change in people's expectations for antibiotics for runny nose, colds, sore throat or cough, but people's expectations for antibiotics for flu increased (26%-32%, p=0.004). Of the 1000 respondents in 2011 with an RTI in the previous 6?months, 13% reported that they took care of themselves without contacting their general practitioners and would not have done so before the pandemic, 9% reported that they had contacted their doctor's surgery and would not have done so before the pandemic and 0.6% stated that they had asked for antibiotics and would not have done so before the pandemic. In 2011, of 123 respondents with a young child (0-4?years) having an RTI in the previous 6?months, 7.4% requested antibiotics and would not have done so before the pandemic. Unprompted, 20% of respondents thought Tamiflu© (oseltamivir) was a vaccine.Expectations of the general public for a consultation or antibiotics with an RTI are similar now to before the H1N1 influenza pandemic; therefore, public antibiotic campaign messages and general practice advice to patients can remain unchanged. Parents with young children and those with personal experience of the H1N1 influenza are more likely to consult and will need more reassurance. The public need more education about Tamiflu©.

Project description:BackgroundThe health burden of type 2 diabetes can be mitigated by engaging patients in two key aspects of diabetes care: self-management and regular contact with health professionals. There is a clear benefit to integrating these aspects of care into a single clinical tool, and as mobile phone ownership increases, apps become a more feasible platform. However, the effectiveness of online health interventions is contingent on uptake by health care providers, which is typically low. There has been little research that focuses specifically on barriers and facilitators to health care provider uptake for interventions that link self-management apps to the user's primary care physician (PCP).ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore PCP perspectives on proposed features for a self-management app for patients with diabetes that would link to primary care services.MethodsResearchers conducted 25 semistructured interviews. The interviewer discussed potential features that would link in with the patient's primary care services. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Framework analysis and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist were employed to ensure rigor.ResultsOur analysis indicated that PCP attitudes toward proposed features for an app were underpinned by perceived roles of (1) diabetes self-management, (2) face-to-face care, and (3) the anticipated burden of new technologies on their practice. Theme 1 explored PCP perceptions about how an app could foster patient independence for self-management behaviors but could also increase responsibility and liability for the PCP. Theme 2 identified beliefs underpinning a commonly expressed preference for face-to-face care. PCPs perceived information was more motivating, better understood, and presented with greater empathy when delivered face to face rather than online. Theme 3 described how most PCPs anticipated an initial increase in workload while they learned to use a new clinical tool. Some PCPs accepted this burden on the basis that the change was inevitable as health care became more integrated. Others reported potential benefits were outweighed by effort to implement an app. This study also identified how app features can be positively framed, highlighting potential benefits for PCPs to maximize PCP engagement, buy-in, and uptake. For example, PCPs were more positive when they perceived that an app could facilitate communication and motivation between consultations, focus on building capacity for patient independence, and reinforce rather than replace in-person care. They were also more positive about app features that were automated, integrated with existing software, flexible for different patients, and included secondary benefits such as improved documentation.ConclusionsThis study provided insight into PCP perspectives on a diabetes app integrated with primary care services. This was observed as more than a technological change; PCPs were concerned about changes in workload, their role in self-management, and the nature of consultations. Our research highlighted potential facilitators and barriers to engaging PCPs in the implementation process.

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.DesignOpen, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in the United Kingdom.Patients889 patients aged 3 years and over with acute respiratory tract infection, recruited between 3 March 2010 and 28 March 2012 by 53 health professionals in 25 practices.InterventionsPatients judged not to need immediate antibiotics were randomised to undergo four strategies of delayed prescription: recontact for a prescription, post-dated prescription, collection of the prescription, and be given the prescription (patient led). During the trial, a strategy of no antibiotic prescription was added as another randomised comparison. Analysis was intention to treat.Main outcome measuresMean symptom severity (0-6 scale) at days 2-4 (primary outcome), antibiotic use, and patients' beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Secondary analysis included comparison with immediate use of antibiotics.ResultsMean symptom severity had minimal differences between the strategies involving no prescription and delayed prescription (recontact, post-date, collection, patient led; 1.62, 1.60, 1.82, 1.68, 1.75, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.61, P=0.625). Duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse also did not differ between no prescription and delayed prescription strategies combined (median 3 days v 4 days; 4.29, P=0.368). There were modest and non-significant differences in patients very satisfied with the consultation between the randomised groups (79%, 74%, 80%, 88%, 89%, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.38, P=0.667), belief in antibiotics (71%, 74%, 73%, 72%, 66%; 1.62, P=0.805), or antibiotic use (26%, 37%, 37%, 33%, 39%; 4.96, P=0.292). By contrast, most patients given immediate antibiotics used antibiotics (97%) and strongly believed in them (93%), but with no benefit for symptom severity (score 1.76) or duration (median 4 days).ConclusionStrategies of no prescription or delayed antibiotic prescription result in fewer than 40% of patients using antibiotics, and are associated with less strong beliefs in antibiotics, and similar symptomatic outcomes to immediate prescription. If clear advice is given to patients, there is probably little to choose between the different strategies of delayed prescription.Trial registrationISRCTN38551726.

Project description:The Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients.Two formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires.The problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round.The cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine parental perspectives/rankings of the most important weight-management clinical practices and to determine whether preferences/rankings differ when parents disagree that their child is overweight.MethodsWe performed mixed-methods analysis of a 32-question survey of parents of 2- to 18-year-old overweight children assessing parental agreement that their child is overweight, the single most important thing providers can do to improve weight status, ranking American Academy of Pediatrics-recommended clinical practices, and preferred follow-up interval. Four independent reviewers analyzed open-response data to identify qualitative themes/subthemes. Multivariable analyses examined parental rankings, preferred follow-up interval, and differences by agreement with their child's overweight assessment.ResultsThirty-six percent of 219 children were overweight, 42% obese, and 22% severely obese; 16% of parents disagreed with their child's overweight assessment. Qualitative analysis of the most important practice to help overweight children yielded 10 themes; unique to parents disagreeing with their children's overweight assessments was "change weight-status assessments." After adjustment, the 3 highest-ranked clinical practices included, "check for weight-related problems," "review growth chart," and "recommend general dietary changes" (all P < .01); parents disagreeing with their children's overweight assessments ranked "review growth chart" as less important and ranked "reducing screen time" and "general activity changes" as more important. The mean preferred weight-management follow-up interval (10-12 weeks) did not differ by agreement with children's overweight assessments.ConclusionsParents prefer weight-management strategies that prioritize evaluating weight-related problems, growth-chart review, and regular follow-up. Parents who disagree that their child is overweight want changes in how overweight is assessed. Using parent-preferred weight-management strategies may prove useful in improving child weight status.

Dataset Information

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care.

Publications

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets