SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016
Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of safety-netting approaches for acutely ill children: a network meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review of patient-oriented interventions to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections: summary and update of a systematic review.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Pooled it
- Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Written information for patients (or parents of child patients) to reduce the use of antibiotics for acute upper respiratory tract infections in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Booklet for Childhood Fever in Out-of-Hours Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2018Trial
- The decision-making process in general practice of when to use antibiotics to treat acute rhinosinusitis.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- 'In Texas, everybody wants antibiotics': reducing inappropriate antibiotic expectations and use with a provider-patient communication tool in primary care.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Development and assessment of an online communication skills course to optimise antibiotic prescribing for children in primary care.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficacy of priming and commitment posters on urgent care patients' antibiotic expectations and knowledge: a cluster randomized trial.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of de-implementation of low-value healthcare practices: an overview of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Implementation of a Multifaceted Program to Improve the Rational Use of Antibiotics in Children under 3 Years of Age in Primary Care.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Drivers of district-level differences in outpatient antibiotic prescribing in Germany: a qualitative study with prescribers.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of parents' attitudes and practices related to antibiotic use for their children in Kosovo: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- General Practitioners', Pharmacists' and Parents' Views on Antibiotic Use and Resistance in Malta: An Exploratory Qualitative Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Weighing patient attributes in antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections: A discrete choice experiment on primary care physicians in Hubei Province, China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Acute respiratory infections in an adult refugee population: an observational study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2021Observational
- Review
- Measuring Antibiotic Stewardship Programmes and Initiatives: An Umbrella Review in Primary Care Medicine and a Systematic Review of Dentistry.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) are frequently managed in primary care settings. Although many are viral, and there is an increasing problem with antibiotic resistance, antibiotics continue to be prescribed for URTIs. Written patient information may be a simple way to reduce antibiotic use for acute URTIs.
objectivesTo assess if written information for patients (or parents of child patients) reduces the use of antibiotics for acute URTIs in primary care. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, clinical trials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials registry up to July 2016 without language or publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients (or parents of child patients) with acute URTIs, that compared written patient information delivered immediately before or during prescribing, with no information. RCTs needed to have measured our primary outcome (antibiotic use) to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. We could not meta-analyse included studies due to significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity; we summarised the data narratively. MAIN
resultsTwo RCTs met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 827 participants. Both studies only recruited children with acute URTIs (adults were not involved in either study): 558 children from 61 general practices in England and Wales; and 269 primary care doctors who provided data on 33,792 patient-doctor consultations in Kentucky, USA. The UK study had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and the US cluster-randomised study had a high risk of bias because the methods to allocate participants to treatment groups was not clear, and there was evidence of baseline imbalance.In both studies, clinicians provided written information to parents of child patients during primary care consultations: one trained general practitioners (GPs) to discuss an eight-page booklet with parents; the other conducted a factorial trial with two comparison groups (written information compared to usual care and written information plus prescribing feedback to clinicians compared to prescribing feedback alone). Doctors in the written information arms received 25 copies of two-page government-sponsored pamphlets to distribute to parents.Compared to usual care, we found moderate quality evidence (one study) that written information significantly reduced the number of antibiotics used by patients (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.80; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 20% (22% versus 42%)) and had no significant effect on reconsultation rates (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.32), or parent satisfaction with consultation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03). Low quality evidence (two studies) demonstrated that written information also reduced antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; ARR 21% (20% versus 41%); and RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.86; 9% ARR (45% versus 54%)). Neither study measured resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or complications for this comparison.Compared to prescribing feedback, we found low quality evidence that written information plus prescribing feedback significantly increased the number of antibiotics prescribed by clinicians (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.17; absolute risk increase 6% (50% versus 44%)). Neither study measured reconsultation rate, resolution of symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, patient satisfaction with consultation or complications for this comparison. AUTHORS'
conclusionsCompared to usual care, moderate quality evidence from one study showed that trained GPs providing written information to parents of children with acute URTIs in primary care can reduce the number of antibiotics used by patients without any negative impact on reconsultation rates or parental satisfaction with consultation. Low quality evidence from two studies shows that, compared to usual care, GPs prescribe fewer antibiotics for acute URTIs but prescribe more antibiotics when written information is provided alongside prescribing feedback (compared to prescribing feedback alone). There was no evidence addressing resolution of patients' symptoms, patient knowledge about antibiotics for acute URTIs, or frequency of complications.To fill evidence gaps, future studies should consider testing written information on antibiotic use for adults with acute URTIs in high- and low-income settings provided without clinician training and presented in different formats (such as electronic). Future study designs should endeavour to ensure blinded outcome assessors. Study aims should include measurement of the effect of written information on the number of antibiotics used by patients and prescribed by clinicians, patient satisfaction, reconsultation, patients' knowledge about antibiotics, resolution of symptoms, and complications.
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.