↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Effect of Financially Punished Audit and Feedback in a Pediatric Setting in China, within an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program, and as Part of an International Accreditation Process
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sitang Gong, Xiu Qiu, Yanyan Song, Xin Sun, Yanling He, Yilu Chen, Minqing Li, Rui Luo, Liya He, Qing Wei, Songying Shen, Yu Liu, Lian Zhang, Wei Zhou, Ping Huang, Jianning Mai, Li Liu, Yi Xu, Huiying Liang, Huimin Xia

Abstract

Prior authorization, audit and feedback, and pay for performance are the three core "active" strategies of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), yet little is known about the individual or combined benefits of such programs, particularly in a pediatric setting. The aim of this study was to compare these core ASP strategies and determine the incremental effect of financially punished audit and feedback. During the journey to the Joint Commission International accreditation, a tertiary pediatric medical center performed two different hospital-wide stewardship interventions in succession. The first stage without formalized ASPs served as pre-intervention period, January 2011 to April 2011. The ASP used prior authorization alone during the first-intervention period, May 2011 to September 2011. In October 2011, financially punished audit and feedback was introduced, marking the start of the second-intervention period, October 2011 to November 2012. We compared the differences of the change in monthly average use of antibiotics and expenditure on antibiotics before and after the ASP changes by using interrupted time series via dynamic regression. The main end points included the proportions of antibiotic prescriptions and expenditure on antibacterial relative to all medications. Before the second-intervention period, neither the proportion of antibiotic prescriptions nor the proportion of expenditure on antibiotics declined significantly in both ambulatory and inpatient settings. However, after the introduction of financially punished audit and feedback, the proportion of both antibiotic prescriptions (β = -6.269, P < 0.001, and reduction = 59.4% for outpatients; β = -1.235, P < 0.001, and reduction = 19.8% for inpatients) and expenditure on antibiotics (β = -7.777, P < 0.001, and reduction = 46.7% for outpatients; β = -4.933, P = 0.001, and reduction = 16.3% for inpatients) dropped immediately. The combination of more than one core strategies (prior authorization, audit and feedback, and pay for performance) will be more effective than one strategy alone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 23%
Researcher 10 19%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,280,124
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,006
of 9,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,888
of 334,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#24
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 334,035 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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 68% of its contemporaries.