↓ Skip to main content

Reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for children in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial of two interventions

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for children in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial of two interventions
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke B Lemiengre, Jan Y Verbakel, Roos Colman, Tine De Burghgraeve, Frank Buntinx, Bert Aertgeerts, Frans De Baets, An De Sutter

Abstract

Antibiotics are overprescribed for non-severe acute infections in children in primary care. To explore two different interventions that may reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for non-severe acute infections. A cluster randomised, factorial controlled trial in primary care, in Flanders, Belgium. Family physicians (FPs) enrolled children with non-severe acute infections into this study. The participants were allocated to one of four intervention groups according to whether the FPs performed: (1) a point-of-care C-reactive protein test (POC CRP); (2) a brief intervention to elicit parental concern combined with safety net advice (BISNA); (3) both POC CRP and BISNA; or (4) usual care (UC). Guidance on the interpretation of CRP was not provided. The main outcome was the immediate antibiotic prescribing rate. A mixed logistic regression was performed to analyse the data. In this study 2227 non-severe acute infections in children were registered by 131 FPs. In comparison with UC, POC CRP did not influence antibiotic prescribing, (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 1.79). BISNA increased antibiotic prescribing (AOR 2.04, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.50). In combination with POC CRP, this increase disappeared. Systematic POC CRP testing without guidance is not an effective strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing for non-severe acute infections in children in primary care. Eliciting parental concern and providing a safety net without POC CRP testing conversely increased antibiotic prescribing. FPs possibly need more training in handling parental concern without inappropriately prescribing antibiotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 51 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 57 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,703,716
of 25,959,914 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#824
of 4,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,354
of 460,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#22
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,959,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 460,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.