↓ Skip to main content

Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
105 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011360.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jack W O'Sullivan, Robert T Harvey, Paul P Glasziou, Amanda McCullough

Abstract

Acute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs. To assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included. Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively. Two RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison. Compared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 105 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 19%
Student > Master 29 18%
Unspecified 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Other 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 37%
Unspecified 37 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Psychology 10 6%
Other 25 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#226,057
of 13,454,756 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#558
of 10,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,845
of 376,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,454,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 376,322 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.