Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24238118›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2013

Evaluation of a web-based intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for LRTI in six European countries: quantitative process analysis of the GRACE/INTRO randomised controlled trial.

Lucy Yardley, Elaine Douglas, Sibyl Anthierens, Sarah Tonkin-Crine, Gilly O'Reilly, Beth Stuart, Adam W A Geraghty, Emily Arden-Close, Alike W van der Velden, Herman Goosens and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Rapid microbiological respiratory point-of-care testing: a qualitative study with primary care clinicians.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Lucy YardleyCentre for Applications of Health Psychology (CAHP), Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BG, UK. L.Yardley@soton.ac.uk.
Elaine Douglas
Sibyl Anthierens
Sarah Tonkin-Crine
Gilly O'Reilly
Beth Stuart
Adam W A Geraghty
Emily Arden-Close
Alike W van der Velden
Herman Goosens
Theo J M Verheij
Chris C Butler
Nick A Francis
Paul Little
GRACE consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance, there is a pressing need for worldwide implementation of effective interventions to promote more prudent prescribing of antibiotics for acute LRTI. This study is a process analysis of the GRACE/INTRO trial of a multifactorial intervention that reduced antibiotic prescribing for acute LRTI in six European countries. The aim was to understand how the interventions were implemented and to examine effects of the interventions on general practitioners' (GPs') and patients' attitudes.

methodsGPs were cluster randomised to one of three intervention groups or a control group. The intervention groups received web-based training in either use of the C-reactive protein (CRP) test, communication skills and use of a patient booklet, or training in both. GP attitudes were measured before and after the intervention using constructs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour and a Website Satisfaction Questionnaire. Effects of the interventions on patients were assessed by a post-intervention questionnaire assessing patient enablement, satisfaction with the consultation, and beliefs about the risks and need for antibiotics.

resultsGPs in all countries and intervention groups had very positive perceptions of the intervention and the web-based training, and felt that taking part had helped them to reduce prescribing. All GPs perceived reducing prescribing as more important and less risky following the intervention, and GPs in the communication groups reported increased confidence to reduce prescribing. Patients in the communication groups who received the booklet reported the highest levels of enablement and satisfaction and had greater awareness that antibiotics could be unnecessary and harmful.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that the interventions should be broadly acceptable to both GPs and patients, as well as feasible to roll out more widely across Europe. There are also some indications that they could help to engender changes in GP and patient attitudes that will be helpful in the longer-term, such as increased awareness of the potential disadvantages of antibiotics and increased confidence to manage LRTI without them. Given the positive effects of the booklet on patient beliefs and attitudes, it seems logical to extend the use of the patient booklet to all patients.

Indexed as

InternetAcute DiseaseAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsCluster AnalysisDrug Resistance, MicrobialEuropeFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansInappropriate PrescribingMaleMiddle AgedRespiratory Tract InfectionsSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID24238118
PMCPMC3922910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.