↓ Skip to main content

Using qualitative insights to change practice: exploring the culture of antibiotic prescribing and consumption for urinary tract infections

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, January 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Using qualitative insights to change practice: exploring the culture of antibiotic prescribing and consumption for urinary tract infections
Published in
BMJ Open, January 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008894
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sinead Duane, Christine Domegan, Aoife Callan, Sandra Galvin, Martin Cormican, Kathleen Bennett, Andrew W Murphy, Akke Vellinga

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the culture of antibiotic prescribing and consumption in the community for urinary tract infections (UTI) from the perspective of the general practitioners (GPs) and community member. Indepth interviews were conducted with GPs, and focus groups were held with community members. General practice and community setting. 15 GPs practising in rural and urban locations in Ireland participated in the indepth interviews. 6 focus groups (n=42) with participants who had direct or indirect experiences with UTI were also undertaken. The decision to prescribe or consume an antibiotic for a UTI is a set of complex processes including need recognition, information search and evaluation processes governed by the relationship and interactions between the GP and the patient. Different GP and patient decision-making profiles emerged emphasising the diversity and variety of general practice in real-life settings. The GP findings showed a requirement for more microbiological information on antibiotic resistance patterns to inform prescribing decisions. Focus group participants wanted a conversation with the GP about their illness and the treatment options available. Collectively, this research identified the consultation as a priority intervention environment for stimulating change in relation to antibiotics. This paper demonstrates how qualitative research can identify the interacting processes which are instrumental to the decision to prescribe or consume an antibiotic for a suspected UTI. Qualitative research empowers researchers to investigate the what, how and why of interventions in real-life setting. Qualitative research can play a critical and instrumental role in designing behavioural change strategies with high impact on practice. The results of this research were used to design a complex intervention informed by social marketing. NCT01913860; Pre-results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 26 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#1,597,466
of 15,922,419 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,388
of 14,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,402
of 372,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#128
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,419 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 372,342 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 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.