167
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To assess the effect of general practitioner testing for C reactive protein (disease approach) and receiving training in enhanced communication skills (illness approach) on antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection.

          Design Pragmatic, 2×2 factorial, cluster randomised controlled trial.

          Setting 20 general practices in the Netherlands.

          Participants 40 general practitioners from 20 practices recruited 431 patients with lower respiratory tract infection.

          Main outcome measures The primary outcome was antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation. Secondary outcomes were antibiotic prescribing during 28 days’ follow-up, reconsultation, clinical recovery, and patients’ satisfaction and enablement.

          Interventions General practitioners’ use of C reactive protein point of care testing and training in enhanced communication skills separately and combined, and usual care.

          Results General practitioners in the C reactive protein test group prescribed antibiotics to 31% of patients compared with 53% in the no test group (P=0.02). General practitioners trained in enhanced communication skills prescribed antibiotics to 27% of patients compared with 54% in the no training group (P<0.01). Both interventions showed a statistically significant effect on antibiotic prescribing at any point during the 28 days’ follow-up. Clinicians in the combined intervention group prescribed antibiotics to 23% of patients (interaction term was non-significant). Patients’ recovery and satisfaction were similar in all study groups.

          Conclusion Both general practitioners’ use of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in enhanced communication skills significantly reduced antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infection without compromising patients’ recovery and satisfaction with care. A combination of the illness and disease focused approaches may be necessary to achieve the greatest reduction in antibiotic prescribing for this common condition in primary care.

          Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85154857.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          What are pragmatic trials?

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding the culture of prescribing: qualitative study of general practitioners' and patients' perceptions of antibiotics for sore throats.

            To better understand reasons for antibiotics being prescribed for sore throats despite well known evidence that they are generally of little help. Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. General practices in South Wales. 21 general practitioners and 17 of their patients who had recently consulted for a sore throat or upper respiratory tract infection. Subjects' experience of management of the illness, patients' expectations, beliefs about antibiotic treatment for sore throats, and ideas for reducing prescribing. Doctors knew of the evidence for marginal effectiveness yet often prescribed for good relationships with patients. Possible patient benefit outweighed theoretical community risk from resistant bacteria. Most doctors found prescribing "against the evidence" uncomfortable and realised this probably increased workload. Explanations of the distinction between virus and bacterium often led to perceived confusion. Clinicians were divided on the value of leaflets and national campaigns, but several favoured patient empowerment for self care by other members of the primary care team. Patient expectations were seldom made explicit, and many were not met. A third of patients had a clear expectation for antibiotics, and mothers were more likely to accept non-antibiotic treatment for their children than for themselves. Satisfaction was not necessarily related to receiving antibiotics, with many seeking reassurance, further information, and pain relief. This prescribing decision is greatly influenced by considerations of the doctor-patient relationship. Consulting strategies that make patient expectations explicit without damaging relationships might reduce unwanted antibiotics. Repeating evidence for lack of effectiveness is unlikely to change doctors' prescribing, but information about risk to individual patients might. Emphasising positive aspects of non-antibiotic treatment and lack of efficacy in general might be helpful.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials

              Background Cluster randomised trials can be susceptible to a range of methodological problems. These problems are not commonly recognised by many researchers. In this paper we discuss the issues that can lead to bias in cluster trials. Methods We used a sample of cluster randomised trials from a recent review and from a systematic review of hip protectors. We compared the mean age of participants between intervention groups in a sample of 'good' cluster trials with a sample of potentially biased trials. We also compared the effect sizes, in a funnel plot, between hip protector trials that used individual randomisation compared with those that used cluster randomisation. Results There is a tendency for cluster trials, with evidence methodological biases, to also show an age imbalance between treatment groups. In a funnel plot we show that all cluster trials show a large positive effect of hip protectors whilst individually randomised trials show a range of positive and negative effects, suggesting that cluster trials may be producing a biased estimate of effect. Conclusion Methodological biases in the design and execution of cluster randomised trials is frequent. Some of these biases associated with the use of cluster designs can be avoided through careful attention to the design of cluster trials. Firstly, if possible, individual allocation should be used. Secondly, if cluster allocation is required, then ideally participants should be identified before random allocation of the clusters. Third, if prior identification is not possible, then an independent recruiter should be used to recruit participants.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: general practitioner trainee and researcher
                Role: professor of primary care medicine
                Role: general practitioner and researcher
                Role: reader in statistics
                Role: professor of general practice
                Journal
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1468-5833
                2009
                2009
                05 May 2009
                : 338
                : b1374
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Practice, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales
                [3 ]Foundation of Primary Health Care Centres Eindhoven, Netherlands
                [4 ]South East Wales Trials Unit, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J W L Cals j.cals@ 123456hag.unimaas.nl
                Article
                calj586248
                10.1136/bmj.b1374
                2677640
                19416992
                6f2c8bda-0bf4-45fc-a859-e6a672507f8c
                © Cals et al 2009

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 January 2009
                Categories
                Research
                Infectious Diseases
                Patients
                Clinical Trials (Epidemiology)
                General Practice / Family Medicine

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article