Trial reportAtencion primaria2003
[Intervention strategies for the rational use of anti-microbials].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of two strategies aimed at improving the prescription of antibiotics in the primary care context.
designExperimental crossed-intervention study, with control group and randomised allocation to groups.
settingTwo primary care helth districts (Camas and Sierra Norte).
participants84 general practitioners for whom computerised prescription data were available, and who worked for over 40% of the working days of the study period. Interventions. In the intervention group, training sessions were conducted and written information was sent out. In the control group, only written information was sent. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The impact of the interventions was evaluated through the student´s t test for paired data. Variables were the DHD of antibiotics, selection of first-level antibiotics and %RSP of antibiotics out of total pharmaceutical cost. Secondary measurements included duration of the effect of the intervention and description of the group who responded.
resultsIn the intervention group, the DHD dropped significantly (from 17.4±1.4 to 12.2±0.9) (P<.05), as did the %RSP (from 6.96%±0.6 to 5.19%±0.8), as against the control group. The impact of the intervention lasted 1.5 years, when information was sent at one year from the intervention. The profile of the doctors who responded to the intervention was women aged 46 with MIR (residential) training.
conclusionsTo modify antibiotic prescription habits, training sessions accompanied by written information gives good lasting results. The profiles of respondents/non-respondents depended on sex, age and training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.