The effect of using an interactive booklet on childhood respiratory tract infections in consultations: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Let's Talk About Antibiotics: a randomised trial of two interventions to reduce antibiotic misuse

BACKGROUND

Children with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) receive ≈11.4 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions annually. A noted contributor is inadequate parent-clinician communication, however, efforts to reduce overprescribing have only indirectly targeted communication or been impractical.

OBJECTIVES

Compare two feasible (higher vs lower intensity) interventions for enhancing parent-clinician communication on the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

DESIGN

Multisite, parallel group, cluster randomised comparative effectiveness trial. Data collected between March 2017 and March 2019.

SETTING

Academic and private practice outpatient clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinicians (n=41, 85% of eligible approached) and 1599 parent-child dyads (ages 1-5 years with ARTI symptoms, 71% of eligible approached).

INTERVENTIONS

All clinicians received 20 min ARTI diagnosis and treatment education. Higher intensity clinicians received an additional 50 min communication skills training. All parents viewed a 90 second antibiotic education video.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Inappropriate antibiotic treatment was assessed via blinded medical record review by study clinicians and a priori defined as prescriptions for the wrong diagnosis or use of the wrong agent. Secondary outcomes were revisits, adverse drug reactions (both assessed 2 weeks after the visit) and parent ratings of provider communication, shared decision-making and visit satisfaction (assessed at end of the visit on Likert-type scales).

RESULTS

Most clinicians completed the study (n=38, 93%), were doctors (n=25, 66%), female (n=30, 78%) and averaged 8 years in practice. All parent-child dyad provided data for the main outcome (n=855 (54%) male, n=1043 (53%) <2 years). Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was similar among patients who consulted with a higher intensity (54/696, 7.8%) versus a lower intensity (85/904, 9.4%) clinician. A generalised linear mixed effect regression model (adjusted for the two-stage nested design, clinician type, clinic setting and clinician experience) revealed that the odds of receiving inappropriate antibiotic treatment did not significantly vary by group (AOR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.89, p=0.98). Secondary outcomes of revisits and adverse reactions did not vary between arms, and parent ratings of satisfaction with quality of parent-provider communication (5/5), shared decision making (9/10) and visit satisfaction (5/5) were similarly high in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Rate of inappropriate prescribing was low in both arms. Clinician education coupled with parent education may be sufficient to yield low inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rates. The absence of a significant difference between groups indicates that communication principles previously thought to drive inappropriate prescribing may need to be re-examined or may not have as much of an impact in practices where prescribing has improved in recent years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03037112.

Protocol for a randomised trial of higher versus lower intensity patient-provider communication interventions to reduce antibiotic misuse in two paediatric ambulatory clinics in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Children with acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) are prescribed up to 11.4 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions annually. Inadequate parent-provider communication is a chief contributor, yet efforts to reduce overprescribing have only indirectly targeted communication or been impractical. This paper describes our multisite, parallel group, cluster randomised trial comparing two feasible interventions for enhancing parent-provider communication on the rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (primary outcome) and revisits, adverse drug reactions and parent-rated quality of shared decision-making, parent-provider communication and visit satisfaction (secondary outcomes).

METHODS/ANALYSIS

We will attempt to recruit all eligible paediatricians and nurse practitioners (currently 47) at an academic children's hospital and a private practice. Using a 1:1 randomisation, providers will be assigned to a higher intensity education and communication skills or lower intensity education-only intervention and trained accordingly. We will recruit 1600 eligible parent-child dyads. Parents of children ages 1-5 years who present with ARTI symptoms will be managed by providers trained in either the higher or lower intensity intervention. Before their consultation, all parents will complete a baseline survey and view a 90 s gain-framed antibiotic educational video. Parent-child dyads consulting with providers trained in the higher intensity intervention will, in addition, receive a gain-framed antibiotic educational brochure promoting cautious use of antibiotics and rate their interest in receiving an antibiotic which will be shared with their provider before the visit. All parents will complete a postconsultation survey and a 2-week follow-up phone survey. Due to the two-stage nested design (parents nested within providers and clinics), we will employ generalised linear mixed-effect regression models.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Children's Mercy Hospital Pediatric Institutional Review Board (#16060466). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03037112; Pre-results.

Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care

BACKGROUND

Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.

The content, format and timing of a preparation for childhood hospitalization booklet: An action research project

The experience of childhood hospitalization may be improved by appropriate preparation. As part of a larger project to improve preparation practices for children and their families, a group of health-care professionals investigated the content, format and timing of a pre-existing preparation booklet for a particular procedure. This article analyses the evaluation of the preparation booklet that led to a finding that collaboration among health-care professionals enables improved practice and shared professional power and responsibility.

Parents' and clinicians' views of an interactive booklet about respiratory tract infections in children: a qualitative process evaluation of the EQUIP randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

'When should I worry?' is an interactive booklet for parents of children presenting with respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care and associated training for clinicians. A randomised controlled trial (the EQUIP study) demonstrated that this intervention reduced antibiotic prescribing and future consulting intentions. The aims of this qualitative process evaluation were to understand how acceptable the intervention was to clinicians and parents, how it was implemented, the mechanisms for any observed effects, and contextual factors that could have influenced its effects.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 parents and 13 clinicians who participated in the trial. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a framework approach, which involved five stages; familiarisation, development of a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and interpretation.

RESULTS

Most parents and clinicians reported that the 'When should I worry' interactive booklet (and online training for clinicians) was easy to use and valuable. Information on recognising signs of serious illness and the usual duration of illness were most valued. The interactive use of the booklet during consultations was considered to be important, but this did not always happen. Clinicians reported lack of time, lack of familiarity with using the booklet, and difficulty in modifying their treatment plan/style of consultation as barriers to use. Increased knowledge and confidence amongst clinicians and patients were seen as key components that contributed to the reductions in antibiotic prescribing and intention to consult seen in the trial. This was particularly pertinent in a context where decisions about the safe and appropriate management of childhood RTIs were viewed as complex and parents reported frequently receiving inconsistent messages.

CONCLUSIONS

The 'When should I worry' booklet, which is effective in reducing antibiotic prescribing, has high acceptability for clinicians and parents, helps address gaps in knowledge, increases confidence, and provides a consistent message. However, it is not always implemented as intended. Plans for wider implementation of the intervention in health care settings would need to address clinician-related barriers to implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN46104365.

Cluster size variability and imbalance in cluster randomized controlled trials

Cluster randomized controlled trials are increasingly used to evaluate medical interventions. Research has found that cluster size variability leads to a reduction in the overall effective sample size. Although reporting standards of cluster trials have started to evolve, a far greater degree of transparency is needed to ensure that robust evidence is presented. The use of the numbers of patients recruited to summarize recruitment rate should be avoided in favour of an improved metric that illustrates cumulative power and accounts for cluster variability. Data from four trials is included to show the link between cluster size variability and imbalance. Furthermore, using simulations it is demonstrated that by randomising using a two block randomization strategy and weighting the second by cluster size recruitment, chance imbalance can be minimized.

Effect of using an interactive booklet about childhood respiratory tract infections in primary care consultations on reconsulting and antibiotic prescribing: a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To establish whether an interactive booklet on respiratory tract infections in children reduces reconsultation for the same illness episode, reduces antibiotic use, and affects future consulting intentions, while maintaining parental satisfaction with care.

DESIGN

Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

61 general practices in Wales and England.

PARTICIPANTS

558 children (6 months to 14 years) presenting to primary care with an acute respiratory tract infection (7 days or less). Children with suspected pneumonia, asthma or a serious concomitant illness, or needing immediate hospital admission were excluded. Three withdrew and 27 were lost to follow-up, leaving 528 (94.6%) with main outcome data.

INTERVENTIONS

Clinicians in the intervention group were trained in the use of an interactive booklet on respiratory tract infections and asked to use the booklet during consultations with recruited patients (and provide it as a take home resource). Clinicians in the control group conducted their consultations as usual.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of children who attended a face-to-face consultation about the same illness during the two week follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic consumption, future consulting intentions, and parental satisfaction, reassurance, and enablement.

RESULTS

Reconsultation occurred in 12.9% of children in the intervention group and 16.2% in the control group (absolute risk reduction 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -2.7% to 9.3%, P=0.29). Using multilevel modelling (at the practice and individual level) to account for clustering, no significant difference in reconsulting was noted (odds ratio 0.75; 0.41 to 1.38). Antibiotics were prescribed at the index consultation to 19.5% of children in the intervention group and 40.8% of children in the control group (absolute risk reduction 21.3%, 95% confidence interval 13.7 to 28.9), P<0.001). A significant difference was still present after adjusting for clustering (odds ratio 0.29; 0.14 to 0.60). There was also a significant difference in the proportion of parents who said they would consult in the future if their child developed a similar illness (odds ratio 0.34; 0.20 to 0.57). Satisfaction, reassurance, and parental enablement scores were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a booklet on respiratory tract infections in children within primary care consultations led to important reductions in antibiotic prescribing and reduced intention to consult without reducing satisfaction with care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46104365.

Developing an 'interactive' booklet on respiratory tract infections in children for use in primary care consultations

OBJECTIVE

To construct a systematic process for developing an 'interactive' booklet for use in primary care consultations and to use this process to develop a booklet on respiratory tract infections in children.

METHODS

Booklet development occurred through a number of stages, which included: expert group brainstorming and literature review, professional graphic design, readability assessment, and consultation with users. Consultation was achieved through the use of focus groups and interviews with parents, focus groups and independent booklet review by general practitioners, and booklet review and feedback by paediatricians.

RESULTS

All development stages led to meaningful enhancements to the booklet. Consultation with parents demonstrated a desire for more information than anticipated, with a particular emphasis on the interpretation of signs and symptoms, and the recognition of serious illness. General practitioners contributed to the design and clarity of the booklet and helped to ensure that it would be acceptable for use within consultations.

CONCLUSION

Written material needs to be developed in a systematic way and include consultation with the intended users. Focus groups are a valuable tool for consulting with consumers and practitioners in this regard.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The process described can be used as a guide for those wishing to develop similar written materials.