↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to uptake of antimicrobial advice in a UK hospital: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hospital Infection, March 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to uptake of antimicrobial advice in a UK hospital: a qualitative study
Published in
Journal of Hospital Infection, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.03.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Broom, A. Broom, S. Plage, K. Adams, J.J. Post

Abstract

The role of infectious diseases (ID) and clinical microbiology (CM) in hospital settings has expanded in response to increasing antimicrobial resistance, leading to widespread development of hospital antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, the majority of which include antibiotic approval systems. However, inappropriate antibiotic use in hospitals continues, suggesting potential disjunctions between technical advice and the logics of antibiotic use within hospitals. To examine the experiences of doctors in a UK hospital with respect to AMS guidance of antibiotic prescribing, and experiences of a verbal postprescription antibiotic approval process. Twenty doctors in a teaching hospital in the UK participated in semi-structured interviews about their experiences of antibiotic use and governance. NVivo10 software was used to conduct a thematic content analysis systematically. This study identified three key themes regarding doctors' relationships with ID/CM clinicians that shaped their antibiotic practices: (1) competing hierarchical influences limiting active consultation with ID/CM; (2) non-ID/CM consultants' sense of ownership over clinical decision-making and concerns about challenges to clinical autonomy; and (3) tensions between evidence-based practice and experiential-style learning. This study illustrates the importance of examining relations between ID/CM and non-ID/CM clinicians in the hospital context, indicating that AMS models that focus exclusively on delivering advice rather than managing interprofessional relationships may be limited in their capacity to optimize antibiotic use. AMS and, specifically, antibiotic approval systems would likely be more effective if they incorporated time and resources for fostering and maintaining professional relationships.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Psychology 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 2022.
All research outputs
#2,108,672
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hospital Infection
#425
of 4,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,056
of 315,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Infection
#6
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. 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 315,357 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.