↓ Skip to main content

Primary care clinician antibiotic prescribing decisions in consultations for children with RTIs: a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Primary care clinician antibiotic prescribing decisions in consultations for children with RTIs: a qualitative interview study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x683821
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy Horwood, Christie Cabral, Alastair D Hay, Jenny Ingram

Abstract

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are a major primary care challenge in children because they are common and costly, there is uncertainty regarding their diagnosis, prognosis, and management, and the overuse of antibiotics leads to illness medicalisation and bacterial resistance. To investigate healthcare professional (HCP) diagnostic and antibiotic prescribing decisions for children with RTIs. Semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 GPs and six nurses. HCPs were recruited from six general practices and one walk-in centre, serving a mix of deprived and affluent areas. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, imported into NVivo 9, and analysed thematically. HCPs varied in the symptom and clinical examination findings used to identify children they thought might benefit from antibiotics. Their diagnostic reasoning and assessment of perceived clinical need for antibiotics used a dual process, combining an initial rapid assessment with subsequent detailed deductive reasoning. HCPs reported confidence diagnosing and managing most minor and severe RTIs. However, residual prognostic uncertainty, particularly for the intermediate illness severity group, frequently led to antibiotic prescribing to mitigate the perceived risk of subsequent illness deterioration. Some HCPs perceived a need for more paediatrics training to aid treatment decisions. The study also identified a number of non-clinical factors influencing prescribing. Prognostic uncertainty remains an important driver of HCPs' antibiotic prescribing. Experience and training in recognising severe RTIs, together with more evidence to help HCPs identify the children at risk of future illness deterioration, may support HCPs' identification of the children most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 21%
Researcher 29 18%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 33 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 15%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#1,136,792
of 25,376,589 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#516
of 4,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,299
of 402,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#16
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,589 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,877 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 89% 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 402,492 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.