Patient-oriented interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in respiratory tract infections: a meta-analysis

How, why and when are delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions used in primary care? A realist review integrating concepts of uncertainty in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is a global patient safety priority and inappropriate antimicrobial use is a key contributing factor. Evidence have shown that delayed (back-up) antibiotic prescriptions (DP) are an effective and safe strategy for reducing unnecessary antibiotic consumption but its use is controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a realist review to ask why, how, and in what contexts general practitioners (GPs) use DP. We searched five electronic databases for relevant articles and included DP-related data from interviews with healthcare professionals in a related study. Data were analysed using a realist theory-driven approach - theorising which context(s) influenced (mechanisms) resultant outcome(s) (context-mechanism-outcome-configurations: CMOCs).

RESULTS

Data were included from 76 articles and 41 interviews to develop a program theory comprising nine key and 56 related CMOCs. These explain the reasons for GPs' tolerance of risk to different uncertainties and how these may interact with GPs' work environment, self-efficacy and perceived patient concordance to make using DP as a safety-net or social tool more or less likely, at a given time-point. For example, when a GP uses clinical scores or diagnostic tests: a clearly high or low score/test result may mitigate scientific uncertainty and lead to an immediate or no antibiotic decision; an intermediary result may provoke hermeneutic (interpretation-related) uncertainty and lead to DP becoming preferred and used as a safety net. Our program theory explains how DP can be used to mitigate some uncertainties but also provoke or exacerbate others.

CONCLUSION

This review explains how, why and in what contexts GPs are more or less likely to use DP, as well as various uncertainties GPs face which DP may mitigate or provoke. We recommend that efforts to plan and implement interventions to optimise antibiotic prescribing in primary care consider these uncertainties and the contexts when DP may be (dis)preferred over other interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing. We also recommend the following and have included example activities for: (i) reducing demand for immediate antibiotics; (ii) framing DP as an 'active' prescribing option; (iii) documenting the decision-making process around DP; and (iv) facilitating social and system support.

Antibiotic-Prescribing Patterns Among Patients With Respiratory Symptoms in the Eastern Province, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Background Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) represent the most common diagnosis in ambulatory care settings. Some of these infections are properly treated with antibiotics, but evidence points to an inappropriate overuse of antibiotics in URTI management. This overuse is linked to antibiotic resistance, drug-related adverse effects, and increased costs. Objective This study evaluated the prevalence and predictors of antibiotic prescription for patients with URTI symptoms at the primary healthcare centers (PHCCs) and pediatric emergency department (ED) of the Maternity and Children Hospital (MCH) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Methods A prospective study was conducted in the PHCCs and pediatric ED of MCH. Trained physicians collected data on patients with URTI symptoms aged three years and older. Scores based on modified Centor criteria were calculated, and rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) were conducted for all study participants. Results Out of 469 patients with a URTI, 141 (30.1%) received a prescription for an antibiotic, with a smaller proportion in the PHCCs (n=85; 24.4%) than in the pediatric ED (n=56; 46.3%). The main significant predictors of antibiotic prescription in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were a positive RADT result (OR=41.75, 95%CI=4.76-366.28), the presence of tonsillar exudate (OR=5.066, 95%CI=3.08-8.33), tender and/or swollen anterior cervical lymph nodes (OR=4.537, 95%CI=1.96-10.54), and fever (OR=3.519, 95%CI=2.33-5.31). A higher Centor score was also a predictor (2 to 5 vs. -1 to 1) (OR=2.72, 95%CI=1.8-4.12). The absence of a cough was not a significant predictor (OR=1.13, 95%CI=0.74-1.72). Conclusions Although a positive RADT increased the likelihood that a patient would be prescribed an antibiotic at the time of assessment, most antibiotic prescriptions were not justified. To control expenses, prevent adverse effects, and limit the spread of antibiotic resistance, efforts should be made to reduce unnecessarily high antibiotic usage.

Antibiotic expectation, behaviour, and receipt among patients presenting to emergency departments with uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infection during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, patients who attended the emergency department (ED) for upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) were more likely to receive antibiotics if they expected them. These expectations could have changed with the change in health-seeking behaviour during the pandemic. We assessed the factors associated with antibiotics expectation and receipt for uncomplicated URTI patients in four Singapore EDs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study on adult patients with URTI from March 2021 to March 2022 in four Singapore EDs and assessed the determinants of antibiotics expectation and receipt using multivariable logistic regression models. We also assessed the reasons patients expect antibiotics during their ED visit.

RESULTS

Among 681 patients, 31.0% expected antibiotics while 8.7% received antibiotics during their ED visit. Factors (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) that significantly influenced expectation for antibiotics include: 1) prior consultation for current illness with (6.56 [3.30-13.11]) or without (1.50 [1.01-2.23]) antibiotics prescribed; 2) anticipation for COVID-19 test (1.56 [1.01-2.41]); and 3) poor (2.16 [1.26-3.68]) to moderate (2.26 [1.33-3.84]) knowledge on antibiotics use and resistance. Patients expecting antibiotics were 10.6 times (10.64 [5.34-21.17]) more likely to receive antibiotics. Those with tertiary education were twice (2.20 [1.09-4.43]) as likely to receive antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, patients with URTI who expected antibiotics to be prescribed remained more likely to receive it during the COVID-19 pandemic. This highlights the need for more public education on the non-necessity for antibiotics for URTI and COVID-19 to address the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Exploring Antimicrobial Stewardship Influential Interventions on Improving Antibiotic Utilization in Outpatient and Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antimicrobial stewardship interventions are targeted efforts by healthcare organizations to optimize antimicrobial use in clinical practice. The study aimed to explore effective interventions in improving antimicrobial use in hospitals. Literature was systemically searched for interventional studies through PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases that were published in the period between January 2010 to April 2022. A random-effects model was used to pool and evaluate data from eligible studies that reported antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in outpatient and inpatient settings. Pooled estimates presented as proportions and standardized mean differences. Forty-eight articles were included in this review: 32 in inpatient and 16 in outpatient settings. Seventeen interventions have been identified, and eight outcomes have been targeted. AMS interventions improved clinical, microbiological, and cost outcomes in most studies. When comparing non-intervention with intervention groups using meta-analysis, there was an insignificant reduction in length of stay (MD: -0.99; 95% CI: -2.38, 0.39) and a significant reduction in antibiotics' days of therapy (MD: -2.73; 95% CI: -3.92, -1.54). There were noticeable reductions in readmissions, mortality rates, and antibiotic prescriptions post antimicrobial stewardship multi-disciplinary team (AMS-MDT) interventions. Studies that involved a pharmacist as part of the AMS-MDT showed more significant improvement in measured outcomes than the studies that did not involve a pharmacist.

What are the most effective community-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions in low- and middle-income countries? A narrative review

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global issue and antimicrobial stewardship is central to tackling its emergence. The burden of AMR disproportionately impacts low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where capacity for surveillance and management of resistant pathogens is least developed. Poorly regulated antibiotic consumption in the community is a major driver of AMR, especially in LMICs, yet community-based interventions are neglected in stewardship research, which is often undertaken in high-income settings and/or in hospitals. We reviewed the evidence available to researchers and policymakers testing or implementing community-based antimicrobial stewardship strategies in LMICs. We critically appraise that evidence, deliver recommendations and identify outstanding areas of research need. We find that multifaceted, education-focused interventions are likely most effective in our setting. We also confirm that the quality and quantity of community-based stewardship intervention research is limited, with research on microbiological, clinical and economic sustainability most urgently needed.

Barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections: A qualitative study with general practitioners in Malta

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance is a leading global public health concern and antibiotic use is a key driver. Effective interventions are needed to target key stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs). In Malta, little is known about factors that influence GPs' antibiotic prescribing, making it challenging to implement targeted interventions. We therefore aimed to explore GPs' understanding of antibiotic use and resistance, and describe their perceived barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Malta.

METHODS

Face-to-face individual semi-structured interviews were held with a quota sample of 20 GPs in 2014. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and later analysed iteratively using manifest and latent content analysis. Findings were collated in a socioecological model to depict how GPs as individuals are embedded within larger social systems and contexts, and how each component within this system impacts their prescribing behaviour.

FINDINGS

We found that GPs' antibiotic prescribing decisions are complex and impacted by numerous barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, organisational, community, and public policy level. Predominant factors found to impact GPs' antibiotic prescribing included not only intrinsic GP factors such as knowledge, awareness, experience, and misconceptions, but also several external factors. At the interpersonal level, GPs' perceived patient demand and behaviour to be a persistent issue that impacts their prescribing decisions. Similarly, some GPs found pressure from drug reps to be concerning despite being considered an important source of information. Organisational and public policy-level issues such as lack of access to relevant antibiotic prescribing guidelines and current antibiotic resistance data from the community, were also considered major barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Utilisation of diagnostic testing was found to be low and GPs' perceptions on the introduction of rapid point-of-care tests to support antibiotic prescription decisions, were mixed.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the complexity of the antibiotic prescribing decision and the numerous barriers and facilitators that impact it, visualised through a socioecological model. Addressing GPs' antibiotic prescribing practices will require targeted and coordinated implementation activities at all levels to change behaviour and address misconceptions, whilst also improving the physical and social environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03218930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.

Enhancing the translation of health behaviour change research into practice: a selective conceptual review of the synergy between implementation science and health psychology

Health psychology is at the forefront of developing and disseminating evidence, theories, and methods that have improved the understanding of health behaviour change. However, current dissemination approaches may be insufficient for promoting broader application and impact of this evidence to benefit the health of patients and the public. Nevertheless, behaviour change theory/methods typically directed towards health behaviours are now used in implementation science to understand and support behaviour change in individuals at different health system levels whose own behaviour impacts delivering evidence-based health behaviour change interventions. Despite contributing to implementation science, health psychology is perhaps doing less to draw from it. A redoubled focus on implementation science in health psychology could provide novel prospects for enhancing the impact of health behaviour change evidence. We report a Health Psychology Review-specific review-of-reviews of trials of health behaviour change interventions published from inception to April 2020. We identified 34 reviews and assessed whether implementation readiness of behaviour change interventions was discussed. We then narratively review how implementation science has integrated theory/methods from health psychology and related discipline. Finally, we demonstrate how greater synergy between implementation science and health psychology could promote greater follow-through on advances made in the science of health behaviour change.

Systematic review of patient-oriented interventions to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections

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.

Uva-ursi extract and ibuprofen as alternative treatments of adult female urinary tract infection (ATAFUTI): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Women with acute uncomplicated urine infection are usually treated with antibiotics. One trial has demonstrated that delayed antibiotic treatment offered without symptom relief results in a modest reduction in antibiotic use. There is some evidence that ibuprofen provides symptom relief and reduces antibiotic use. Uva-ursi, a herbal product, has a traditional use for urinary infection symptom relief. We set out to test: in adult women with suspected UTI who accept the delayed prescription strategy: Do NSAIDs or uva-ursi (a herbal product) provide relief from urinary symptoms and reduce antibiotic use.

METHODS/DESIGN

Adult women with suspected urinary tract infection presenting to primary care will be randomised using a factorial trial design in which patients will be randomised to one of two interventions as below: Group 1 - Uva-ursi + advice to take ibuprofen Group 2 - Placebo + advice to take ibuprofen Group 3 - Uva-ursi + no advice to take ibuprofen Group 4 - Placebo + no advice to take ibuprofen Patients and physicians will be blinded to the randomised group for the herb. The main outcome is symptom severity at days 2-4 recorded in a validated, self-report diary used in previous studies. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use and symptom duration. In total the trial will require 328 patients in order to achieve at least 90% power for the primary endpoint and 80% for the secondary endpoint. In accordance with CONSORT guidelines all comparative analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using SPSS or similar package.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes from this trial have the potential to modify the current approach to the management of acute urinary symptoms with less dependence on the use of antibiotics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN43397016 . Registered on 11 February 2015.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Exploring patients' views of primary care consultations with contrasting interventions for acute cough: a six-country European qualitative study

BACKGROUND

In a pan-European randomised controlled trial (GRACE INTRO) of two interventions, (i) a point-of-care C-reactive protein test and/or (ii) training in communication skills and use of an interactive patient booklet, both interventions resulted in large reductions in antibiotic prescribing for acute cough.

AIMS

This process evaluation explored patients' views of primary care consultations using the two interventions in six European countries.

METHODS

Sixty-two interviews were conducted with patients who had participated in the GRACE INTRO trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and translated into English where necessary. Analysis used techniques from thematic and framework analysis.

RESULTS

Most patients were satisfied with their consultation despite many not receiving an antibiotic. Patients appeared to accept the use of both intervention approaches. A minority, but particularly in the trial arm with both interventions, reported that they would wait longer before consulting for cough in future.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients perceived that both interventions supported the general practitioner's (GP's) prescribing decisions by helping them understand when an antibiotic was, and was not, needed. Patients consulting with acute cough had largely positive views about the GP's enhanced communication skills, which included understanding their concerns, and the use of a near-patient test as an additional investigation.

Supporting the improvement and management of prescribing for urinary tract infections (SIMPle): protocol for a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The overuse of antimicrobials is recognized as the main selective pressure driving the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in human bacterial pathogens. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections presented in primary care and empirical antimicrobial treatment is currently recommended. Previous research has identified that a substantial proportion of Irish general practitioners (GPs) prescribe antimicrobials for UTIs that are not in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The aim of this trial is to design, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention on GP antimicrobial prescribing and adult (18 years of age and over) patients' antimicrobial consumption when presenting with a suspected UTI.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Supporting the Improvement and Management of Prescribing for urinary tract infections (SIMPle) study is a three-armed intervention with practice-level randomization. Adult patients presenting with suspected UTIs in primary care will be included in the study.The intervention integrates components for both GPs and patients. For GPs the intervention includes interactive workshops, audit and feedback reports and automated electronic prompts summarizing recommended first-line antimicrobial treatment and, for one intervention arm, a recommendation to consider delayed antimicrobial treatment. For patients, multimedia applications and information leaflets are included. Thirty practices will be recruited to the study; laboratory data indicate that 2,038 patients will be prescribed an antimicrobial in the study. The primary outcome is a change in prescribing of first-line antimicrobials for UTIs in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The study will take place over 15 months with a six-month intervention period. Data will be collected through a remote electronic anonymized data-extraction system, a text-messaging system and GP and patient interviews and surveys. The intervention will be strengthened by the implementation of a social marketing framework and an economic evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This intervention is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT01913860.

Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory

Despite decades of research, consensus regarding the dynamics of fear appeals remains elusive. A meta-analysis was conducted that was designed to resolve this controversy. Publications that were included in previous meta-analyses were re-analysed, and a number of additional publications were located. The inclusion criteria were full factorial orthogonal manipulations of threat and efficacy, and measurement of behaviour as an outcome. Fixed and random effects models were used to compute mean effect size estimates. Meta-analysis of the six studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria clearly showed a significant interaction between threat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (d = 0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (d = 0.71). Inconsistency in results regarding the effectiveness of threatening communication can likely be attributed to flawed methodology. Proper tests of fear appeal theory yielded the theoretically hypothesised interaction effect. Threatening communication should exclusively be used when pilot studies indicate that an intervention successfully enhances efficacy.