Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Development of an intervention to reduce antibiotic use for childhood coughs in UK primary care using critical synthesis of multi-method research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Overuse of antibiotics contributes to the global threat of antimicrobial resistance. Antibiotic stewardship interventions address this threat by reducing the use of antibiotics in occasions or doses unlikely to be effective. We aimed to develop an evidence-based, theory-informed, intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care for childhood respiratory tract infections (RTI). This paper describes our methods for doing so.

          Methods

          Green and Krueter’s Precede/Proceed logic model was used as a framework to integrate findings from a programme of research including 5 systematic reviews, 3 qualitative studies, and 1 cohort study. The model was populated using a strength of evidence approach, and developed with input from stakeholders including clinicians and parents.

          Results

          The synthesis produced a series of evidence-based statements summarizing the quantitative and qualitative evidence for intervention elements most likely to result in changes in clinician behaviour. Current evidence suggests that interventions which reduce clinical uncertainty, reduce clinician/parent miscommunication, elicit parent concerns, make clear delayed or no-antibiotic recommendations, and provide clinicians with alternate treatment actions have the best chance of success. We designed a web-based within-consultation intervention to reduce clinician uncertainty and pressure to prescribe, designed to be used when children with RTI present to a prescribing clinician in primary care.

          Conclusions

          We provide a worked example of methods for the development of future complex interventions in primary care, where multiple factors act on multiple actors within a complex system. Our synthesis provided intervention guidance, recommendations for practice, and highlighted evidence gaps, but questions remain about how best to implement these recommendations. The funding structure which enabled a single team of researchers to work on a multi-method programme of related studies (NIHR Programme Grant scheme) was key in our success.

          Trial registration

          The feasibility study accompanying this intervention was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN23547970), on 27 June 2014.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0455-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. In this trial, we aimed to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) in England. Methods In this randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose prescribing rate for antibiotics was in the top 20% for their National Health Service (NHS) Local Area Team. Eligible practices were randomly assigned (1:1) into two groups by computer-generated allocation sequence, stratified by NHS Local Area Team. Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment. On Sept 29, 2014, every GP in the feedback intervention group was sent a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer and a leaflet on antibiotics for use with patients. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team. GPs in the control group received no communication. The sample was re-randomised into two groups, and in December, 2014, GP practices were either sent patient-focused information that promoted reduced use of antibiotics or received no communication. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 weighted population, controlling for past prescribing. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN32349954, and has been completed. Findings Between Sept 8 and Sept 26, 2014, we recruited and assigned 1581 GP practices to feedback intervention (n=791) or control (n=790) groups. Letters were sent to 3227 GPs in the intervention group. Between October, 2014, and March, 2015, the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population was 126·98 (95% CI 125·68–128·27) in the feedback intervention group and 131·25 (130·33–132·16) in the control group, a difference of 4·27 (3·3%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·967 [95% CI 0·957–0·977]; p<0·0001), representing an estimated 73 406 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. In December, 2014, GP practices were re-assigned to patient-focused intervention (n=777) or control (n=804) groups. The patient-focused intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome measure between December, 2014, and March, 2015 (antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population: 135·00 [95% CI 133·77–136·22] in the patient-focused intervention group and 133·98 [133·06–134·90] in the control group; IRR for difference between groups 1·01, 95% CI 1·00–1·02; p=0·105). Interpretation Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and at national scale; this outcome makes it a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Funding Public Health England.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews

            Objectives Translating research evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously difficult. Behavioural interventions are often used to change practice, although their success is variable and the characteristics of more successful interventions are unclear. We aimed to establish the characteristics of successful behaviour change interventions in healthcare. Design We carried out a systematic overview of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions with a theory-led analysis using the constructs of normalisation process theory (NPT). MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched electronically from inception to July 2015. Setting Primary and secondary care. Participants Participants were any patients and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews who met the inclusion criteria of having examined the effectiveness of professional interventions in improving professional practice and/or patient outcomes. Interventions Professional interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Primary and secondary outcome measures Success of each intervention in changing practice or patient outcomes, and their mechanisms of action. Reviews were coded as to the interventions included, how successful they had been and which NPT constructs its component interventions covered. Results Searches identified 4724 articles, 67 of which met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three main categories: persuasive; educational and informational; and action and monitoring. Interventions focusing on action or education (eg, Audit and Feedback, Reminders, Educational Outreach) acted on the NPT constructs of Collective Action and Reflexive Monitoring, and reviews using them tended to report more positive outcomes. Conclusions This theory-led analysis suggests that interventions which contribute to normative restructuring of practice, modifying peer group norms and expectations (eg, educational outreach) and relational restructuring, reinforcing modified peer group norms by emphasising the expectations of an external reference group (eg, Reminders, Audit and Feedback), offer the best chances of success. Combining such interventions is most likely to change behaviour.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Tailoring: what's in a name?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44117 3310866 , Patricia.lucas@bristol.ac.uk
                Jenny.Ingram@bristol.ac.uk
                Niamh.Redmond@bristol.ac.uk
                Christie.cabral@bristol.ac.uk
                Sophie.Turnbull@bristol.ac.uk
                Alastair.Hay@bristol.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                28 December 2017
                28 December 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 175
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7603, GRID grid.5337.2, School for Policy Studies, , University of Bristol, ; 8 Priory Rd, Bristol, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7603, GRID grid.5337.2, Centre for Child and Adolescent Health, Population Health Sciences, , Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, ; Bristol, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0380 7336, GRID grid.410421.2, National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West (NIHR CLAHRC West), , University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, ; Bristol, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7603, GRID grid.5337.2, Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, , University of Bristol, ; Bristol, UK
                Article
                455
                10.1186/s12874-017-0455-9
                5745782
                29281974
                c0b05032-ea74-415a-a64d-d289e43cfa52
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 24 May 2017
                : 6 December 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-0608-10018
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                intervention development,respiratory tract infections,child,drug resistance,microbial,models,psychological,primary health care,mixed methods,evidence synthesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content72

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors1,055