↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: an updated and expanded meta-ethnography

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: an updated and expanded meta-ethnography
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x697889
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evi Germeni, Julia Frost, Ruth Garside, Morwenna Rogers, Jose M Valderas, Nicky Britten

Abstract

Reducing unnecessary prescribing remains a key priority for tackling the global rise of antibiotic-resistant infections. The authors sought to update a 2011 qualitative synthesis of GPs' experiences of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), including their views of interventions aimed at more prudent prescribing. They expanded the original scope to encompass all primary care professionals (PCPs) who can prescribe or dispense antibiotics for ARTIs (for example, nurses and pharmacists). Systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, and Web of Science. No date or language restrictions were used. Identified studies were grouped according to their thematic focus (usual care versus intervention), and two separate syntheses were performed. In all, 53 articles reporting the experiences of >1200 PCPs were included. Analysis of usual-care studies showed that PCPs tend to assume multiple roles in the context of ARTI consultations (the expert self, the benevolent self, the practical self), depending on the range of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual situations in which they find themselves. Analysis of intervention studies identified four possible ways in which PCPs may experience quality improvement interventions (compromise, 'supportive aids', source of distress, and unnecessary). Contrary to the original review, these results suggest that the use of the same intervention is experienced in a totally different way by different PCPs, and that the same elements that are perceived as benefits by some could be viewed as drawbacks by others. Acceptability of interventions is likely to increase if these are context sensitive and take into account PCPs' varying roles and changing priorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 35 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,345,721
of 24,313,168 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,481
of 4,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,153
of 332,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#36
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,313,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 332,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.