Research

Effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections

Alike W van der Velden, Eefje J Pijpers, Marijke M Kuyvenhoven, Sarah KG Tonkin-Crine, Paul Little and Theo JM Verheij
British Journal of General Practice 2012; 62 (605): e801-e807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X659268

Abstract

Background Antibiotic use and concomitant resistance are increasing. Literature reviews do not unambiguously indicate which interventions are most effective in improving antibiotic prescribing practice.

Aim To assess the effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions aiming to improve antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care, and to identify intervention features mostly contributing to intervention success.

Design and setting Analysis of a set of physician-targeted interventions in primary care.

Method A literature search (1990–2009) for studies describing the effectiveness of interventions aiming to optimise antibiotic prescription for RTIs by primary care physicians. Intervention features were extracted and effectiveness sizes were calculated. Association between intervention features and intervention success was analysed in multivariate regression analysis.

Results This study included 58 studies, describing 87 interventions of which 60% significantly improved antibiotic prescribing; interventions aiming to decrease overall antibiotic prescription were more frequently effective than interventions aiming to increase first choice prescription. On average, antibiotic prescription was reduced by 11.6%, and first choice prescription increased by 9.6%. Multiple interventions containing at least ‘educational material for the physician’ were most often effective. No significant added value was found for interventions containing patient-directed elements. Communication skills training and near-patient testing sorted the largest intervention effects.

Conclusion This review emphasises the importance of physician education in optimising antibiotic use. Further research should focus on how to provide physicians with the relevant knowledge and tools, and when to supplement education with additional intervention elements. Feasibility should be included in this process.

INTRODUCTION

Misuse of antibiotics is an urgent, progressive and worldwide public-health problem. Overuse of antibiotics in general and excessive use of broad spectrum antibiotics, have contributed to development of antimicrobial resistance.1 Non-indicated use of antibiotics is furthermore related to unnecessary exposure to adverse effects, costs and patients’ re-consultation.2,3 There is growing concern that therapeutic options become limited if resistance rates continue to rise. The most effective strategy for combating antimicrobial resistance is decreasing antibiotic use.4

The vast majority of antibiotics are used by primary care patients, mainly for respiratory tract infections (RTIs): otitis media, sinusitis, rhinitis, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, and bronchitis.5 RTIs are mostly viral and self-limiting, and therefore treatment effects of antibiotics are modest to negligible.6,7 Nonetheless, antibiotics are often prescribed for RTIs,8 while for the majority of patients watchful waiting for the disease to run its natural course is the best approach.

In improving antibiotic use, primary care physicians and their patients are potential targets for intervention. For physicians, many guidelines have been published on appropriate treatment of RTIs. These appeared not to be sufficient enough to decrease antibiotic prescribing; implementing guidelines into daily clinical practice is hampered by factors like habits, lack of knowledge, and patients’ behaviour.9,–,11

Numerous interventions have been carried out, mainly in Europe and the US, with the aim to improve antibiotic prescribing practice. These are summarised in four qualitative and semi-quantitative reviews.12,–,15 However, there is still ambiguity whether multiple interventions are more effective than focused clinician education. In particular, the additive effect of audit/feedback, patient information material, involving other healthcare providers, remains unclear. By clarifying which intervention features mostly benefit, the complexity of implementing comprehensive interventions may be reduced.

The most recent review identified studies up to 2006,15 but there have been important studies since. As problems related to antibiotic overuse are still increasing there is a need for insight in effectiveness of interventions. As part of the European CHAMP project (Changing behaviour of Healthcare professionals And the general public towards a More Prudent use of antimicrobial agents) the study analysed an updated set of physician-targeted interventions. The study thereby aims to assess overall effectiveness and identify intervention features mostly contributing to a positive intervention outcome. The set contains a broad range of study designs and is limited to interventions concerning RTIs.

How this fits in

Antibiotics are often overprescribed for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This literature overview shows that physician education is effective in decreasing antibiotic use for RTIs. As multiple interventions were most often effective, education or educational material needs to be supplemented with another intervention element. Addition of patient information did not significantly increase effectiveness rates. Communication skills training for physicians is a promising intervention element to intensify education on prudent use of antibiotics.

METHOD

Search and screening

A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed from January 1990 to July 2009, using several combinations of the keywords (and synonyms of): antibiotic, primary care, intervention, respiratory tract infection, and the specific RTI diagnoses. In addition, reference lists were screened. Inclusion criteria were: an ‘intervention’ primarily targeted at ‘physicians’ in a ‘primary care’ setting aiming to ‘improve antibiotic prescription’ for ‘RTIs’, conducted in a ‘high-income country’, presenting a ‘standardised outcome’ of ‘(first choice) prescription’ measured in ‘defined daily dosage, prescriptions or rates’, and ‘published in the English language’.

Studies were screened on relevance using title, keywords, and abstract, and subsequently using the full texts, independently by two reviewers; disagreement was resolved by consensus or by arbitration of a third person. The main reasons for exclusion were a lack of standardised outcomes or a clear description of intervention features.

Data extraction

Study data were extracted using a structured form (based on the Cochrane Data Collection Checklist of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group)16,17 containing the following domains: study design, intervention characteristics (type -single/multiple/multi-target-, targets -physician, patients, others-, patients’ age, setting, targeted diagnoses), the elements the intervention was composed of, and outcome parameters.

Intervention elements were categorised into: distribution of educational material (for the physician, patients presenting with a RTI, all practice patients, or the general public), educational meetings, consensus procedure, educational outreach visits, local opinion leaders, near-patient testing, audit and feedback, reminders, financial incentives, and communication skills training.

Analyses

Intervention effectiveness was calculated in terms of percentages: 1) the difference of differences (δδ) for interventions with a before and after measurement and a control group, 2) the difference (δ) for interventions with a before and after measurement without a control group, or 3) the difference in after measurement for interventions with a control group but without a before measurement.

For transparency and logistic regression analysis, effectiveness was categorised into ‘plus’ (a statistically significant decrease in total prescription, or increase in first choice prescription), ‘plus/minus’ (a non-significant decrease in prescription, or increase in first choice prescription), or ‘minus’ (interventions without an effect, or with a negative effect). Associations between effectiveness (‘plus’ interventions versus the rest) and intervention features were analysed in logistic regression analysis; characteristics and elements used in at least 15 interventions were used. Statistics were calculated using SPSS (version 17.0).

RESULTS

Description of included interventions

This review comprises 58 studies,18,–,75 describing a total of 87 interventions aiming to optimise antibiotic prescription for RTIs. The designs used most often were a controlled before after design (41%) and a randomised controlled trial (29%). The remaining studies were RCTs without baseline measurements, or had an interrupted time series-like design with one before and one after measurement.

Of the interventions, 59 (68%) aimed to decrease total prescription of antibiotics, and 28 (32%) to increase prescription of first choice antibiotics, 71% were targeted at more than one RTI diagnosis, 77% were multiple (intervention consisting of more than one element), and 40% targeted other groups besides the physician. The 87 interventions comprised 281 intervention elements (Table 1); educational material for the physician (n = 61), educational meeting (n = 49), and audit/feedback (n = 32) were most often used.

View this table:
Table 1

Frequencies of intervention elements used within the 87 interventions (n = 281)

Effectiveness of the interventions

Overall, 60% of the interventions significantly improved antibiotic prescribing (Table 2), with interventions aimed at decreasing overall prescription being more frequently effective (73%) than interventions aimed at increasing first choice prescription (32%) (diff: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.28 to 0.54).

View this table:
Table 2

Proportion of effective interventions (n = 87)

With respect to the absolute outcome measures, overall antibiotic prescription was reduced by 11.6% and first choice prescription increased by 9.6% upon averaging the difference measurements of the individual interventions (Table 3). The extreme value of –72% in reducing overall prescription came from a study analysing the effectiveness of near-patient testing.26 Another extreme difference in this category, –44%, resulted from a combination of communication skills training and near-patient testing.28

View this table:
Table 3

Effectiveness outcomes of the interventions (n = 87)

Associations between effectiveness rates and intervention features

Within the 59 interventions aiming to decrease overall prescription for RTIs, the associations of various intervention features with effectiveness are shown in Table 4. Multiple interventions were more frequently effective than interventions using one element (odds ratio [OR] 6.5). With respect to the most often effective intervention element, only educational material for the physician showed an independent association with a positive intervention outcome (OR 5.5).

View this table:
Table 4

Associations between intervention features and effectiveness rates (n = 59)

As multiple interventions showed to be most often effective, various combinations of elements were tested for their combined effectiveness rate. Only the combination educational material for the physician with educational meeting yielded significance (OR 3.5; 95% CI = 1.2 to 10). In a multiple-target intervention, combining physician with patient education, a non-significant added value was found from adding educational material for patients (OR 5.8; 95% CI = 1-35).

DISCUSSION

Summary

Interventions aimed at reducing overall prescription were more frequently effective (73%) and had higher effectiveness (–11.6%) than interventions aimed at increasing first choice prescription (32% of interventions were effective, with a mean increase of 9.6%). Multiple interventions, which contained at least educational material for the physician, were most often effective. Non-significant added values were found for interventions which, in addition to physician education, contained information material for patients.

Strengths and limitations

This broad overview of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing for RTIs is part of the CHAMP project. The aim of CHAMP was to review all available evidence of the effectiveness of interventions, campaigns, and projects, to obtain a complete picture of how to promote prudent antibiotic use. In propagating initiatives to restrict antibiotic use, such combined insight is pivotal in designing the most effective intervention.

A potential pitfall of making searches as complete as possible by including a broad variety of study designs is decreasing overall quality. The study rated the quality of all included studies,76 which offered the possibility to limit the analyses to moderate and high quality interventions; this did not influence the conclusions (data not shown).

Other possible limitations of combined effectiveness calculations are language selection, publication bias, and selection bias of participants. The study cannot rule out that it missed interventions, those reported in non-English, or unpublished ones, for instance because of negative or unwanted results. It is likely that physicians participating in the included interventions were motivated to learn and change their behaviour. For a broader implementation towards a possibly less motivated population, presented effects may be an overestimation.

The set of included studies is homogeneous with respect to primary target group (physician), indication (RTI), setting (primary care), and aim (optimise antibiotic prescribing). However, the authors are aware of heterogeneity with respect to outcome variables, baseline prescribing, intensity of interventions, and geographic location. Especially due to differences in outcome measures (for example, prescriptions or DDD per consultation, episode, patient, or inhabitant), absolute outcomes can not be compared in a meaningful way, and this study therefore focused on significance of effectiveness. Logistic regression on a binary outcome was used to identify the intervention features which are associated with intervention success, to provide insight for an effective basic intervention which can be broadly applied. Given the inclusion criteria, it is obvious that the majority of interventions use educational material and/or meetings, of which only educational material appeared to be associated with intervention success. On the other hand, 40% of interventions also targeted patients with information material, and although effectiveness rates of these multitarget interventions were increased, this appeared not to be significant. This review thereby emphasises the central role of physician education and currently indicates less priority for extending these interventions with education directly delivered at patients.

Comparison with existing literature

Compared to the review of Arnold and Straus12 this study specifically focused on physician-targeted interventions and RTIs, thereby identifying a new set of interventions; only 10 of the same studies appeared in both reviews. By the study’s specific search, a more homogeneous set of studies is obtained which facilitates comparability and quantitative analyses. Arnold and Straus12 concluded that interventions aimed at reducing overall prescription are less often effective than interventions aimed at increasing first choice prescription, while this study found the opposite. However, they included some less effective interventions aimed at decreasing antibiotic prescription for asthma, diarrhoea, and skin infections.

The finding that multiple interventions are more often effective than single interventions is corroborated by others. However, two reviews concluded that multifaceted interventions, combining physician- and patient-targeted elements, are even more effective, and should be the approach to resolve antibiotic-related problems.12,13 the study’s finding that targeting patients besides the physician did not significantly increase effectiveness rates is remarkable. One may expect that increasing patients’ knowledge and awareness by offering information material, positively affect prescribing behaviour by decreasing pressure on physicians. A review of public campaigns to decrease antibiotic use suggested an effect of public education.77 However, all but one campaign targeted the public and physicians simultaneously, and it is therefore unclear whether the effects were attributable to behaviour of physicians, patients, or both. The results are in line with a meta-analysis concluding that patient-oriented interventions have a very modest effect on antibiotic use, and that this effect was only due to delayed prescription by the physician.78

Implications for clinical practice

The conclusion that physician education is effective in decreasing antibiotic use relevant for primary care practice. However, the current situation shows that just delivering guidelines is not enough to restrict antibiotic prescribing. This review shows the need to intensify educational material by adding another element to create a multiple intervention. Which specific element to add will probably depend on the local situation, but various elements can be considered to adequately increase the impact of an intervention.

An educational meeting appeared more effective than audit/feedback and written patient information, but, on the other hand, is more labour intensive. Most studies indicate that patients are quite satisfied not receiving antibiotics as long as they are taken seriously, are being examined and get a proper explanation.78,–,80 The authors therefore hypothesise that it is more effective when patients receive explanation, reassurance, and antibiotic-related information from their own physician, specific to their own situation, instead of from written material. Time constraints and miscommunication between physician and patients about expectations of the consultation are thought to lead physicians to prescribe against their better judgement.81 Therefore, communication training, providing physicians with succinct and understandable arguments to communicate with their patients, should help to decrease antibiotic use. The few interventions using communication skills training appeared very effective.28,82 Another relatively new intervention element, near-patient testing, showed high effectiveness.26,28 Testing decreases diagnostic uncertainty of the physician, and concomitantly provides the physician with communication tools helping to explain treatment decisions to their patients.

These results emphasise the central role of physician education in decreasing antibiotic use. Ideally, a patient-centred element, teaching physicians how to efficiently communicate a clear take-home message and how to deal with patients’ concerns and pressure, should be included. Research is needed on how to broadly deliver education, and to identify the essential elements for an effective and versatile intervention.

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues of the CHAMP consortium.

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission in the context of the international collaborative CHAMP study: Changing behaviour of Healthcare professionals And the general public towards a More Prudent use of antimicrobial agents (reference: SP5A-CT-2007-044317).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article on the Discussion Forum: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bjgp-discuss

  • Received July 4, 2012.
  • Revision received July 28, 2012.
  • Accepted August 29, 2012.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Goossens H,
    2. Ferech M,
    3. vander Stichele R,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a cross-national database study. Lancet 365(9459):579–587.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Barlett JG
    (2002) Antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. N Engl J Med 346(5):334–339.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Moore M,
    2. Little P,
    3. Rumsby K,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effect of antibiotic prescribing strategies and an information leaflet on longer-term reconsultation for acute lower respiratory tract infection. Br J Gen Pract 59(567):728–734.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Wise R
    (2004) The relentless rise of resistance? J Antimicrob Chemother 54(2):306–310.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Ong DS,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. van Dijk L,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Antibiotics for respiratory, ear and urinary tract disorders and consistency among GPs. J Antimicrob Chemother 62(3):587–592.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Arroll B
    (2005) Antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Respir Med 99(3):255–261.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Fahey T,
    3. Smucny J,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Antibiotics for acute bronchitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD000245.
  8. ↵
    1. Akkerman AE,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. van der Wouden JC,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Determinants of antibiotic overprescribing in respiratory tract infections in general practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 56(5):930–936.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Wensing M,
    2. van der Weijden T,
    3. Grol R
    (1998) Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: which interventions are effective? Br J Gen Pract 48(427):991–997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Grimshaw JM,
    2. Thomas RE,
    3. MacLennan G,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 8(6):iii–iv, 1–72.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Grol R,
    2. Grimshaw J
    (2003) From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 362(9391):1225–1230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Arnold SR,
    2. Straus SE
    (2005) Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in ambulatory care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD003539.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Gross PA,
    2. Pujat D
    (2001) Implementing practice guidelines for appropriate antimicrobial usage: a systematic review. Med Care 39(8 Suppl 2):II55–II69.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Steinman MA,
    2. Ranji SR,
    3. Shojania KG,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Improving antibiotic selection: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of quality improvement strategies. Med Care 44(7):617–628.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Ranji SR,
    2. Steinman MA,
    3. Shojania KG,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review and quantitative analysis. Med Care 46(8):847–862.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Effective Practice and organisation of care Group (EPOC)
    The data collection check list, section 2.1.1, http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/datacollectionchecklist.pdf (accessed 6 Nov 2012).
  17. ↵
    1. Grimshaw J,
    2. McAuley LM,
    3. Bero LA,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Qual Saf Health Care 12(4):298–303.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Anonymous
    (1992) Medical audit in general practice. I: Effects on doctors’ clinical behaviour for common childhood conditions. North of England Study of Standards and Performance in General Practice. BMJ 304(6840):1480–1484.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Al-Khaldi YM,
    2. Al-Sharif AI,
    3. Al-Gelban KS,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Impact of national protocol on management of acute respiratory infections in children. Saudi Med J 22(9):780–783.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Altiner A,
    2. Brockmann S,
    3. Sielk M,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Reducing antibiotic prescriptions for acute cough by motivating GPs to change their attitudes to communication and empowering patients: a cluster-randomized intervention study. J Antimicrob Chemother 60(3):638–644.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Bauchner H,
    2. Marchant CD,
    3. Bisbee A,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Effectiveness of centers for disease control and prevention recommendations for outcomes of acute otitis media. Pediatrics 117(4):1009–1017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Belongia EA,
    2. Sullivan BJ,
    3. Chyou PH,
    4. et al.
    (2001) A community intervention trial to promote judicious antibiotic use and reduce penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae carriage in children. Pediatrics 108(3):575–583.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Berthiaume J,
    2. Chernicoff HO,
    3. Kim JJ,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Antibacterials for viral respiratory infections: results of a physician-based intervention in a predominantly preferred provider organization setting. Dis Manag & Health Outcomes 11:663–671.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Bjerrum L,
    2. Cots JM,
    3. Llor C,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Effect of intervention promoting a reduction in antibiotic prescribing by improvement of diagnostic procedures: a prospective, before and after study in general practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62(11):913–918.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Briel M,
    2. Langewitz W,
    3. Tschudi P,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Communication training and antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infections: a cluster-randomised controlled trial in general practice. Swiss Med Wkly 136(15–16):241–247.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Briel M,
    2. Schuetz P,
    3. Mueller B,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic use vs a standard approach for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care. Arch Intern Med 168(18):2000–2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Bryars CH 3rd.,
    2. deGruy FV,
    3. Dickinson LC,
    4. et al.
    (1991) The effects of the rapid strep test on physician management of streptococcal pharyngitis. J Am Board Fam Pract 4(3):139–143.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Cals JW,
    2. Butler CC,
    3. Hopstaken RM,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ 338:b1374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Christakis DA,
    2. Zimmerman FJ,
    3. Wright JA,
    4. et al.
    (2001) A randomized controlled trial of point-of-care evidence to improve the antibiotic prescribing practices for otitis media in children. Pediatrics 107(2):E15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Coenen S,
    2. Van Royen P,
    3. Michiels B,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Optimizing antibiotic prescribing for acute cough in general practice: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 54(3):661–672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Cox CM,
    2. Jones M
    (2001) Is it possible to decrease antibiotic prescribing in primary care? An analysis of outcomes in the management of patients with sore throats. Fam Pract 18(1):9–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Davis RL,
    2. Wright J,
    3. Chalmers F,
    4. et al.
    (2007) A cluster randomized clinical trial to improve prescribing patterns in ambulatory pediatrics. PLoS Clin Trials 2(5):e25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. De Santis G,
    2. Harvey KJ,
    3. Howard D,
    4. et al.
    (1994) Improving the quality of antibiotic prescription patterns in general practice. The role of educational intervention. Med J Aust 160(8):502–505.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Diederichsen HZ,
    2. Skamling M,
    3. Diederichsen A,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Randomised controlled trial of CRP rapid test as a guide to treatment of respiratory infections in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 18(1):39–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Finkelstein JA,
    2. Davis RL,
    3. Dowell SF,
    4. et al.
    (2001) Reducing antibiotic use in children: A randomized trial in 12 practices. Pediatrics 108(1):1–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    1. Flottorp S,
    2. Oxman AD,
    3. Havelsrud K,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. BMJ 325(7360):367–370.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Friis H,
    2. Bro F,
    3. Mabeck CE,
    4. et al.
    (1991) Changes in prescription of antibiotics in general practice in relation to different strategies for drug information. Dan Med Bull 38(4):380–382.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Gonzales R,
    2. Steiner JF,
    3. Lum A,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Decreasing antibiotic use in ambulatory practice: impact of a multidimensional intervention on the treatment of uncomplicated acute bronchitis in adults. JAMA 281(16):1512–1519.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Gonzales R,
    2. Sauaia A,
    3. Corbett KK,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory tract infections in the elderly: effect of a multidimensional educational intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc 52(1):39–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. González OE,
    2. Armas PL,
    3. Bravo G Jr.,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Prescription of antibiotics for mild acute respiratory infections in children. Bull Pan Am Health Organ 30(2):106–117.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Greene RA,
    2. Beckman H,
    3. Chamberlain J,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Increasing adherence to a community-based guideline for acute sinusitis through education, physician profiling, and financial incentives. Am J Manag Care 10(10):670–678.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Guillemot D,
    2. Varon E,
    3. Bernede C,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Reduction of antibiotic use in the community reduces the rate of colonization with penicillin G-nonsusceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae. Clin Infect Dis 41(7):930–938.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Harris RH,
    2. MacKenzie TD,
    3. Leeman-Castillo B,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Optimizing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in an urban urgent care clinic. J Gen Intern Med 18(5):326–334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Hennessy TW,
    2. Petersen KM,
    3. Bruden D,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Changes in antibiotic-prescribing practices and carriage of penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: a controlled intervention trial in rural Alaska. Clin Infect Dis 34(12):1543–1550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Hickman DE,
    2. Stebbins MR,
    3. Hanak JR,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Pharmacy-based intervention to reduce antibiotic use for acute bronchitis. Ann Pharmacother 37(2):187–191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Hueston WJ,
    2. Mainous AG,
    3. Brauer N,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Evaluation and treatment of respiratory infections: Does managed care make a difference? J Fam Pract 44(6):572–577.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Ilett KF,
    2. Johnson S,
    3. Greenhill G,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Modification of general practitioner prescribing of antibiotics by use of a therapeutics adviser (academic detailer). Br J Clin Pharmacol 49(2):168–173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Juzych NS,
    2. Banerjee M,
    3. Essenmacher L,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Improvements in antimicrobial prescribing for treatment of upper respiratory tract infections through provider education. J Gen Intern Med 20(10):901–905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Malmvall BE,
    2. Molstad S,
    3. Darelid J,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Reduction of antibiotics sales and sustained low incidence of bacterial resistance: report on a broad approach during 10 years to implement evidence-based indications for antibiotic prescribing in Jonkoping County, Sweden. Qual Manag Health Care 16(1):60–67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Margolis CZ,
    2. Warshawsky SS,
    3. Goldman L,
    4. et al.
    (1992) Computerized algorithms and pediatricians’ management of common problems in a community clinic. Acad Med 67(4):282–284.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Martens JD,
    2. Werkhoven MJ,
    3. Severens JL,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Effects of a behaviour independent financial incentive on prescribing behaviour of general practitioners. J Eval Clin Pract 13(3):369–373.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. McIsaac WJ,
    2. Goel V,
    3. To T,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Effect on antibiotic prescribing of repeated clinical prompts to use a sore throat score: lessons from a failed community intervention study. J Fam Pract 51(4):339–344.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Melander E,
    2. Bjorgell A,
    3. Bjorgell P,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Medical audit changes physicians’ prescribing of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections. Scand J Prim Health Care 17(3):180–184.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Molstad S,
    2. Hovelius B
    (1989) Reduction in antibiotic usage following an educational programme. Fam Pract 6(1):33–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Molstad S,
    2. Ekedahl A,
    3. Hovelius B,
    4. et al.
    (1994) Antibiotics prescription in primary care: a 5-year follow-up of an educational programme. Fam Pract 11(3):282–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Munck AP,
    2. Gahrn-Hansen B,
    3. Sogaard P,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Long-lasting improvement in general practitioners’ prescribing of antibiotics by means of medical audit. Scand J Prim Health Care 17(3):185–190.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. O’Connor PJ,
    2. Amundson G,
    3. Christianson J
    (1999) Performance failure of an evidence-based upper respiratory infection clinical guideline. J Fam Pract 48(9):690–697.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Perez-Cuevas R,
    2. Guiscafre H,
    3. Munoz O,
    4. et al.
    (1996) Improving physician prescribing patterns to treat rhinopharyngitis. Intervention strategies in two health systems of Mexico. Soc Sci Med 42(8):1185–1194.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Perz JF,
    2. Craig AS,
    3. Coffey CS,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Changes in antibiotic prescribing for children after a community-wide campaign. JAMA 287(23):3103–3109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Poses RM,
    2. Cebul RD,
    3. Wigton RS
    (1995) You can lead a horse to water — improving physicians’ knowledge of probabilities may not affect their decisions. Med Decis Making 15(1):65–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Rautakorpi UM,
    2. Huikko S,
    3. Honkanen P,
    4. et al.
    (2006) The antimicrobial treatment strategies (MIKSTRA) program: a 5-year follow-up of infection-specific antibiotic use in primary health care and the effect of implementation of treatment guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 42(9):1221–1230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Raz R,
    2. Porat V,
    3. Ephros M
    (1995) Can an educational program improve the diagnosis and treatment of pharyngotonsillitis in the ambulatory care setting? Isr J Med Sci 31(7):432–435.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Razon Y,
    2. Ashkenazi S,
    3. Cohen A,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Effect of educational intervention on antibiotic prescription practices for upper respiratory infections in children: a multicentre study. J Antimicrob Chemother 56(5):937–940.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Rubin MA,
    2. Bateman K,
    3. Alder S,
    4. et al.
    (2005) A multifaceted intervention to improve antimicrobial prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in a small rural community. Clin Infect Dis 40(4):546–553.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Smabrekke L,
    2. Berild D,
    3. Giaever A,
    4. et al.
    (2002) Educational intervention for parents and healthcare providers leads to reduced antibiotic use in acute otitis media. Scand J Infec Dis 34(9):657–659.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Smeets HM,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. Akkerman AE,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Intervention with educational outreach at large scale to reduce antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: a controlled before and after study. Fam Pract 26(3):183–187.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Sondergaard J,
    2. Andersen M,
    3. Stovring H,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Mailed prescriber feedback in addition to a clinical guideline has no impact: a randomised, controlled trial. Scand J Prim Health Care 21(1):47–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Strandberg EL,
    2. Ovhed I,
    3. Troein M,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Influence of self-registration on audit participants and their non-participating colleagues: a retrospective study of medical records concerning prescription patterns. Scand J Prim Health Care 23(1):42–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Temte JL,
    2. Shult PA,
    3. Kirk CJ,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Effects of viral respiratory disease education and surveillance on antibiotic prescribing. Fam Med 31(2):101–106.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Touzet S,
    2. Refabert L,
    3. Letrilliart L,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Impact of consensus development conference guidelines on primary care of bronchiolitis: are national guidelines being followed? J Eval Clin Pract 13(4):651–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Van Driel ML,
    2. Coenen S,
    3. Dirven K,
    4. et al.
    (2007) What is the role of quality circles in strategies to optimise antibiotic prescribing? A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in primary care. Qual Saf Health Care 16(3):197–202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  72. ↵
    1. Varonen H,
    2. Rautakorpi UM,
    3. Nyberg S,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Implementing guidelines on acute maxillary sinusitis in general practice: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract 24(2):201–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Welschen I,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. Hoes AW,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Effectiveness of a multiple intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 329(7463):431.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Zwar N,
    2. Wolk J,
    3. Gordon J,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Influencing antibiotic prescribing in general practice: a trial of prescriber feedback and management guidelines. Fam Pract 16(5):495–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Zwar NA,
    2. Gordon JJ,
    3. Sanson-Fisher RW
    (1995) Evaluation of an educational program in rational prescribing for GP trainees. Aust Fam Physician 24(5):833–838.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Van Tulder M,
    2. Furlan A,
    3. Bombardier C,
    4. et al.
    (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine 28(12):1290–1299.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Huttner B,
    2. Goosens H,
    3. Verheij T,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Characteristics and outcomes of public campaigns aimed at improving the use of antibiotics in outpatients in high-income countries. Lancet Infect Dis 10(1):17–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Thoolen B,
    2. de Ridder D,
    3. van Lensvelt-Mulders G
    (2011) Patient-oriented interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in respiratory tract infections: a meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, DOI:10.1080/1743.7199.2011.552061.
  79. ↵
    1. Van Duijn HJ,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. Schellevis FG,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Illness behaviour and antibiotic prescription in patients with respiratory tract symptoms. Br J Gen Pract 57(540):561–568.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Butler CC,
    2. Rollnick S,
    3. Pill R,
    4. et al.
    (1998) Understanding the culture of prescribing: qualitative study of general practitioners’ and patients’ perceptions of antibiotics for sore throat. BMJ 317(7159):637–642.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Petursson P
    (2005) GPs’ reasons for ‘non-pharmacological’ prescribing of antibiotics. A phenomenological study. Scand J Prim Health Care 23(2):120–125.
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Francis NA,
    2. Butler CC,
    3. Hood K,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effect of using an interactive booklet about childhood respiratory tract infections in primary care consultations on reconsulting and antibiotic prescribing: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339:b2885.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 62 (605)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 62, Issue 605
December 2012
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Effectiveness of physician-targeted interventions to improve antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections
Alike W van der Velden, Eefje J Pijpers, Marijke M Kuyvenhoven, Sarah KG Tonkin-Crine, Paul Little, Theo JM Verheij
British Journal of General Practice 2012; 62 (605): e801-e807. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp12X659268
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice