Dataset Information

Impartiality and infectious disease: Prioritizing individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health disaster driven largely by antibiotic use in human health care. Doctors considering whether to prescribe antibiotics face an ethical conflict between upholding individual patient health and advancing public health aims. Existing literature mainly examines whether patients awaiting consultations desire or expect to receive antibiotic prescriptions, but does not report views of the wider public regarding conditions under which doctors should prescribe antibiotics. It also does not explore the ethical significance of public views or their sensitivity to awareness of AMR risks or the standpoint (self-interested or impartial) taken by participants. METHODS:An online survey was conducted with a sample of the U.S. public (n?=?158). Participants were asked to indicate what relative priority should be given to individual patients and society-at-large from various standpoints and in various contexts, including antibiotic prescription. RESULTS:Of the participants, 50.3% thought that doctors should generally prioritize individual patients over society, whereas 32.0% prioritized society over individual patients. When asked in the context of AMR, 39.2% prioritized individuals whereas 45.5% prioritized society. Participants were significantly less willing to prioritize society over individuals when they themselves were the patient, both in general (p = .001) and in relation to AMR specifically (p = .006). CONCLUSIONS:Participants' attitudes were more oriented to society and sensitive to collective responsibility when informed about the social costs of antibiotic use and when considered from a third-person rather than first-person perspective. That is, as participants came closer to taking the perspective of an informed and impartial "ideal observer," their support for prioritizing society increased. Our findings suggest that, insofar as antibiotic policies and practices should be informed by attitudes that are impartial and well-informed, there is significant support for prioritizing society.

SUBMITTER: Dao B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6446247 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impartiality and infectious disease: Prioritizing individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription.

Dao Bernadine B Douglas Thomas T Giubilini Alberto A Savulescu Julian J Selgelid Michael M Faber Nadira S NS

AJOB empirical bioethics 20190101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health disaster driven largely by antibiotic use in human health care. Doctors considering whether to prescribe antibiotics face an ethical conflict between upholding individual patient health and advancing public health aims. Existing literature mainly examines whether patients awaiting consultations desire or expect to receive antibiotic prescriptions, but does not report views of the wider public regarding conditions under w ...[more]

PMID: 30908114

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDirect-to-consumer telemedicine is an increasingly used modality to access primary care. Previous research on assessment using synchronous virtual visits showed mixed results regarding antibiotic prescription rates, and research on assessment using asynchronous chat-based eVisits is lacking.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to investigate if eVisit management of sore throat, other respiratory symptoms, or dysuria leads to higher rates of antibiotic prescription compared with usual management using physical office visits.MethodsData from 3847 eVisits and 759 office visits for sore throat, dysuria, or respiratory symptoms were acquired from a large private health care provider in Sweden. Data were analyzed to compare antibiotic prescription rates within 3 days, antibiotic type, and diagnoses made. For a subset of sore throat visits (n=160 eVisits, n=125 office visits), Centor criteria data were manually extracted and validated.ResultsAntibiotic prescription rates were lower following eVisits compared with office visits for sore throat (169/798, 21.2%, vs 124/312, 39.7%; P<.001) and respiratory symptoms (27/1724, 1.6%, vs 50/251, 19.9%; P<.001), while no significant differences were noted comparing eVisits to office visits for dysuria (1016/1325, 76.7%, vs 143/196, 73.0%; P=.25). Guideline-recommended antibiotics were prescribed similarly following sore throat eVisits and office visits (163/169, 96.4%, vs 117/124, 94.4%; P=.39). eVisits for respiratory symptoms and dysuria were more often prescribed guideline-recommended antibiotics (26/27, 96.3%, vs 37/50, 74.0%; P=.02 and 1009/1016, 99.3%, vs 135/143, 94.4%; P<.001, respectively). Odds ratios of antibiotic prescription following office visits compared with eVisits after adjusting for age and differences in set diagnoses were 2.94 (95% CI 1.99-4.33), 11.57 (95% CI 5.50-24.32), 1.01 (95% CI 0.66-1.53), for sore throat, respiratory symptoms, and dysuria, respectively.ConclusionsThe use of asynchronous eVisits for the management of sore throat, dysuria, and respiratory symptoms is not associated with an inherent overprescription of antibiotics compared with office visits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03474887; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03474887.

Dataset Information

Impartiality and infectious disease: Prioritizing individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription.

Publications

Impartiality and infectious disease: Prioritizing individuals versus the collective in antibiotic prescription.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets