↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Readers on

116 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
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.
Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003543.pub4
Pubmed ID

Davey, Peter, Marwick, Charis A, Scott, Claire L, Charani, Esmita, McNeil, Kirsty, Brown, Erwin, Gould, Ian M, Ramsay, Craig R, Michie, Susan, Davey, P, Marwick, CA, Scott, CL, Charani, E, McNeil, K, Brown, E, Gould, IM, Ramsay, CR, Michie, S, Peter Davey, Charis A Marwick, Claire L Scott, Esmita Charani, Kirsty McNeil, Erwin Brown, Ian M Gould, Craig R Ramsay, Susan Michie


Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention. Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria. This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect. We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 336 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Other 9 8%
Other 32 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Unspecified 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 15 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 349. 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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
of 11,370,747 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 9,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 321,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,370,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 321,509 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 98% of its contemporaries.