↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Other 15 7%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 51 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 64 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,282,351
of 23,850,698 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#662
of 7,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,057
of 372,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#16
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,850,698 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 372,436 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 90% of its contemporaries.