Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28859445›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2017

Social and professional influences on antimicrobial prescribing for doctors-in-training: a realist review.

Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Karen Mattick, Mark Pearson, Nicola Brennan, Simon Briscoe, Geoff Wong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Ethics of Antibiotic Course Duration: Shorter is Better.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Chrysanthi PapoutsiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2?6GG, UK.
Karen MattickCentre for Research in Professional Learning, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1?2LU, UK.
Mark PearsonNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1?2LU, UK.
Nicola BrennanCollaboration for the Advancement of Medical Education Research & Assessment (CAMERA), Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth University, Drake Circus Plymouth, Devon PL4?8AA, UK.
Simon BriscoeNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX1?2LU, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2?6GG, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 10/1008/07Department of Health HS&DR/13/97/24
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance has led to widespread implementation of interventions for appropriate prescribing. However, such interventions are often adopted without an adequate understanding of the challenges facing doctors-in-training as key prescribers. Methods: The review followed a realist, theory-driven approach to synthesizing qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods literature. Consistent with realist review quality standards, articles retrieved from electronic databases were systematically screened and analysed to elicit explanations of antimicrobial prescribing behaviours. These explanations were consolidated into a programme theory drawing on social science and learning theory, and shaped though input from patients and practitioners. Results: By synthesizing data from 131 articles, the review highlights the complex social and professional dynamics underlying antimicrobial prescribing decisions of doctors-in-training. The analysis shows how doctors-in-training often operate within challenging contexts (hierarchical relationships, powerful prescribing norms, unclear roles and responsibilities, implicit expectations about knowledge levels, uncertainty about application of knowledge in practice) where they prioritize particular responses (fear of criticism and individual responsibility, managing one's reputation and position in the team, appearing competent). These complex dynamics explain how and why doctors-in-training decide to: (i) follow senior clinicians' prescribing habits; (ii) take (or not) into account prescribing aids, advice from other health professionals or patient expectations; and (iii) ask questions or challenge decisions. This increased understanding allows for targeted tailoring, design and implementation of antimicrobial prescribing interventions. Conclusions: This review contributes to a better understanding of how antimicrobial prescribing interventions for doctors-in-training can be embedded more successfully in the hierarchical and inter-professional dynamics of different healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialHealth PersonnelHumansMedical Staff, HospitalPhysiciansSocial PerceptionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID28859445
PMCPMC5890780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.