Dataset Information

Reducing Expectations for Antibiotics in Patients With Upper Respiratory Tract Infections: A Primary Care Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Many family practitioners prescribe antibiotics for patients with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) to meet patients' expectations. We evaluated the impact of providing brief tablet-based information about antibiotic treatment of URTIs on patients' expectations for antibiotics and on family practitioners' antibiotic-prescribing behavior.

Methods

We performed a 3-arm randomized controlled trial among patients presenting with URTIs at 2 urban family practices in Auckland, New Zealand, during winter 2018. Participants were randomly allocated to view a presentation about the futility of antibiotic treatment of URTIs, the adverse effects associated with antibiotics, or the benefits of healthy diet and exercise (active control), immediately before their consultation. Before and after viewing the presentations, participants used a Likert scale to rate the strength of their belief that antibiotics are effective for treating URTIs and of their desire to be prescribed an antibiotic. Patients reported whether an antibiotic had been prescribed, and pharmacy dispensing records were reviewed to determine whether an antibiotic was dispensed.

Results

Participants who viewed either the futility or the adverse effects presentation had greater reductions in their expectations to receive antibiotics than the control group. The mean reduction (95% CI) was 1.1 (0.8-1.3) for the futility group, 0.7 (0.4-0.9) for the adverse effects group, and 0.1 (0-0.3) for the control group (Cohen d = 0.7; P <.001). There was no significant difference among the 3 groups with regard to antibiotic prescribing (P = .84) or dispensing (P = .43).

Conclusions

A brief tablet-based waiting room intervention significantly reduced participants' expectations about receiving antibiotics for URTI immediately before their family practitioner consultation. The intervention did not influence family practitioner prescribing behavior, however.

SUBMITTER: Perera AI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8118493 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.