↓ Skip to main content

Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1715-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen D. Persell, Jason N. Doctor, Mark W. Friedberg, Daniella Meeker, Elisha Friesema, Andrew Cooper, Ajay Haryani, Dyanna L. Gregory, Craig R. Fox, Noah J. Goldstein, Jeffrey A. Linder

Abstract

Clinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial. Primary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined. We examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54-0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.995). We observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Other 14 9%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Psychology 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 31 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,400,564
of 8,204,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,289
of 3,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,664
of 135,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#15
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,204,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,679 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 135,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.