↓ Skip to main content

Interacting factors associated with Low antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary health care – a mixed methods study in Sweden

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Interacting factors associated with Low antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary health care – a mixed methods study in Sweden
Published in
BMC Primary Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0494-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Lena Strandberg, Annika Brorsson, Malin André, Hedvig Gröndal, Sigvard Mölstad, Katarina Hedin

Abstract

Prescribing of antibiotics for common infections varies widely, and there is no medical explanation. Systematic reviews have highlighted factors that may influence antibiotic prescribing and that this is a complex process. It is unclear how factors interact and how the primary care organization affects diagnostic procedures and antibiotic prescribing. Therefore, we sought to explore and understand interactions between factors influencing antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in primary care. Our mixed methods design was guided by the Triangulation Design Model according to Creswell. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in parallel. Quantitative data were collected by prescription statistics, questionnaires to patients, and general practitioners' audit registrations. Qualitative data were collected through observations and semi-structured interviews. From the analysis of the data from the different sources an overall theme emerged: A common practice in the primary health care centre is crucial for low antibiotic prescribing in line with guidelines. Several factors contribute to a common practice, such as promoting management and leadership, internalized guidelines including inter-professional discussions, the general practitioner's diagnostic process, nurse triage, and patient expectation. These factors were closely related and influenced each other. The results showed that knowledge must be internalized and guidelines need to be normative for the group as well as for every individual. Low prescribing is associated with adapted and transformed guidelines within all staff, not only general practitioners. Nurses' triage and self-care advice played an important role. Encouragement from the management level stimulated inter-professional discussions about antibiotic prescribing. Informal opinion moulders talking about antibiotic prescribing was supported by the managers. Finally, continuous professional development activities were encouraged for up-to-date knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,091,226
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,365
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,021
of 377,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#35
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.