Dataset Information

The impact of interventions to improve the quality of prescribing and use of antibiotics in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for primary care (PC) consultations and for antibiotic prescribing and use. The majority of RTIs have a viral aetiology however, and antibiotic consumption is ineffective and unnecessary. Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes greatly to antibiotic resistance (ABR) leading to complications, increased adverse events, reconsultations and costs. Improving antibiotic consumption is thus crucial to containing ABR, which has become an urgent priority worldwide. We will systematically review the evidence about interventions aimed at improving the quality of antibiotic prescribing and use for acute RTI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include primary peer-reviewed and grey literature of studies conducted on in-hours and out-of-hours PC patients (adults and children): (1) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and/or cluster-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of patient-targeted and clinician-targeted interventions and (2) RCTs and other study designs evaluating the effectiveness of public campaigns and regulatory interventions. We will search MEDLINE (EBSCOHost), EMBASE (Elsevier), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINHAL (EBSCOHost), PsychINFO (EBSCOHost), Web of Science, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences), TRIP (Turning Research Into Practice) and opensgrey.eu without language restriction. We will also search the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes include the rates of (guideline-recommended) antibiotics prescribed and/or used. Secondary outcomes include immediate or delayed use of antibiotics, and feasibility and acceptability outcomes. We will assess study eligibility and risk of bias, and will extract data. Data permitting, we will perform meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This is a systematic review protocol and so formal ethical approval is not required. We will not collect confidential, personal or primary data. The findings of this review will be disseminated at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO trial (CRD42017035305).

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Gonzalez NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5726136 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of interventions to improve the quality of prescribing and use of antibiotics in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections: a systematic review protocol.

Martínez-González Nahara Anani NA Coenen Samuel S Plate Andreas A Colliers Annelies A Rosemann Thomas T Senn Oliver O Neuner-Jehle Stefan S

BMJ open 20170613 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are the most common reason for primary care (PC) consultations and for antibiotic prescribing and use. The majority of RTIs have a viral aetiology however, and antibiotic consumption is ineffective and unnecessary. Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes greatly to antibiotic resistance (ABR) leading to complications, increased adverse events, reconsultations and costs. Improving antibiotic consumption is thus crucial to containing ABR, w ...[more]

PMID: 28611111

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDelayed prescribing can be a useful strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing, but it is not clear for whom delayed prescribing might be effective. This protocol outlines an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies to explore the overall effect of delayed prescribing and identify key patient characteristics that are associated with efficacy of delayed prescribing.Methods and analysisA systematic search of the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus and Web of Science was conducted to identify relevant studies from inception to October 2017. Outcomes of interest include duration of illness, severity of illness, complication, reconsultation and patient satisfaction. Study authors of eligible papers will be contacted and invited to contribute raw IPD data. IPD data will be checked against published data, harmonised and aggregated to create one large IPD database. Multilevel regression will be performed to explore interaction effects between treatment allocation and patient characteristics. The economic evaluation will be conducted based on IPD from the combined trial and observational studies to estimate the differences in costs and effectiveness for delayed prescribing compared with normal practice. A decision model will be developed to assess potential savings and cost-effectiveness in terms of reduced antibiotic usage of delayed prescribing and quality-adjusted life years.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 30068). Findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as General Practice trade journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. The results will have important public health implications, shaping the way in which antibiotics are prescribed in the future and to whom delayed prescriptions are issued.Prospero registration numberCRD42018079400.

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:BACKGROUND:Antibiotics are prescribed frequently for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) even though most URTIs do not require antibiotics. This over-prescription contributes to antibiotic resistance which is a major health problem globally. As physicians' prescribing behaviour is influenced by patients' expectations, there may be some opportunities to reduce antibiotic prescribing using patient-oriented interventions. We aimed to identify these interventions and to understand which ones are more effective in reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics for URTIs. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL, and the Web of Science. We included English language randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. Two authors screened the abstract/titles and full texts, extracted data, and assessed study risk of bias. Where pooling was appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed by using a random-effects model. Where pooling of the data was not possible, a narrative synthesis of results was conducted. RESULTS:We included 13 studies (one ITS, one cluster RCTs, and eleven RCTs). All interventions could be classified into two major categories: delayed prescriptions (seven studies) and patient/public information and education interventions (six studies). Our meta-analysis of delayed prescription studies observed significant reductions in the use of antibiotics for URTIs (OR = 0.09, CI 0.03 to 0.23; six studies). A subgroup analysis showed that prescriptions that were given at a later time and prescriptions that were given at the index consultation had similar effects. The studies in the patient/public information and education group varied according to their methods of delivery. Since only one or two studies were included for each method, we could not make a definite conclusion on their effectiveness. In general, booklets or pamphlets demonstrated promising effects on antibiotic prescription, if discussed by a practitioner. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-oriented interventions (especially delayed prescriptions) may be effective in reducing antibiotic prescription for URTIs. Further research is needed to investigate the costs and feasibility of implementing these interventions as part of routine clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016048007.

Project description:UnlabelledEvidence shows that antibiotics have limited effectiveness in the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) yet GPs continue to prescribe antibiotics. Implementation research does not currently provide a strong evidence base to guide the choice of interventions to promote the uptake of such evidence-based practice by health professionals. While systematic reviews demonstrate that interventions to change clinical practice can be effective, heterogeneity between studies hinders generalisation to routine practice. Psychological models of behaviour change that have been used successfully to predict variation in behaviour in the general population can also predict the clinical behaviour of healthcare professionals. The purpose of this study was to design two theoretically-based interventions to promote the management of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) without prescribing antibiotics.MethodInterventions were developed using a systematic, empirically informed approach in which we: selected theoretical frameworks; identified modifiable behavioural antecedents that predicted GPs intended and actual management of URTI; mapped these target antecedents on to evidence-based behaviour change techniques; and operationalised intervention components in a format suitable for delivery by postal questionnaire.ResultsWe identified two psychological constructs that predicted GP management of URTI: "Self-efficacy," representing belief in one's capabilities, and "Anticipated consequences," representing beliefs about the consequences of one's actions. Behavioural techniques known to be effective in changing these beliefs were used in the design of two paper-based, interactive interventions. Intervention 1 targeted self-efficacy and required GPs to consider progressively more difficult situations in a "graded task" and to develop an "action plan" of what to do when next presented with one of these situations. Intervention 2 targeted anticipated consequences and required GPs to respond to a "persuasive communication" containing a series of pictures representing the consequences of managing URTI with and without antibiotics.ConclusionIt is feasible to systematically develop theoretically-based interventions to change professional practice. Two interventions were designed that differentially target generalisable constructs predictive of GP management of URTI. Our detailed and scientific rationale for the choice and design of our interventions will provide a basis for understanding any effects identified in their evaluation.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00376142.

Project description:ObjectivesInappropriate antibiotic use for respiratory tract infection (RTI) is an ongoing problem linked to the emergence of drug resistance and other adverse effects. Less is known about the prescribing practices of individual physicians or the impact of physician prescribing habits on patient outcomes. We studied the prescribing practices of providers for acute RTIs in an integrated health system, identified patient factors associated with receipt of an antibiotic and assessed the relation between providers' adjusted prescribing rates and a number of patient outcomes.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of adults with an RTI visit to any primary care providers across the Cleveland Clinic Health System in 2011-2012. Patients with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or immunocompromised status were excluded. Logistic regression was used to examine patient factors associated with receipt of an antibiotic.ResultsOf 31,416 patients with an RTI, 54.8% received an antibiotic. Patient factors associated with antibiotic prescribing included white race (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, P < 0.001), presence of fever (OR 1.66, P < 0.001), and a diagnosis of bronchitis (OR 10.98, P < 0.001) or sinusitis (OR 33.85, P < 0.001). Among 290 providers with ≥10 RTI visits, adjusted antibiotic prescribing rates ranged from 0% to 100% (mean 49%). Antibiotics were prescribed more often for sinusitis (OR 33.85, P < 0.001), bronchitis (OR 10.98, P < 0.001), or pharyngitis (OR 1.76, P < 0.001) compared with upper respiratory tract infection. Patients who were prescribed antibiotics at the index visit were more likely to return for RTI within 1 year (adjusted OR 1.26, P < 0.001). Emergency department visits for respiratory complications were rare and not associated with antibiotic receipt.ConclusionsAntibiotic prescribing for RTI varies widely among physicians and cannot be explained by patient factors. Patients prescribed antibiotics for RTI were more likely to return for RTI.

Dataset Information

The impact of interventions to improve the quality of prescribing and use of antibiotics in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections: a systematic review protocol.

Publications

The impact of interventions to improve the quality of prescribing and use of antibiotics in primary care patients with respiratory tract infections: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets