Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29180593›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care.

Lisa McDermott, Geraldine M Leydon, Amy Halls, Jo Kelly, Amanda Nagle, Jennifer White, Paul Little, PIPS investigators

Open access · goldAbstract readPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Post-consultation acute respiratory tract infection recovery: a latent class-informed analysis of individual patient data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lisa McDermottDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Geraldine M LeydonDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Amy HallsDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6625-3073
Jo KellyDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Amanda NagleDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Jennifer WhiteDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Paul LittleDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
PIPS investigators
University of Southampton · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore perceptions of illness, the decisions to consult and the acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions and self-help treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs).

designQualitative semistructured interview study.

settingUK primary care.

participants20 adult patients who had been participating in the 'PIPS' (Pragmatic Ibuprofen Paracetamol and Steam) trial in the South of England.

methodSemistructured telephone interviews were conducted with participants to explore their experiences and views on various treatments for RTI.

resultsParticipants had concerns about symptoms that were not clinically serious and were mostly unaware of the natural history of RTIs, but were aware of the limitations of antibiotics and did not expect them with every consultation. Most viewed delayed prescriptions positively and had no strong preference over which technique is used to deliver the delayed antibiotic, but some patients received mixed messages, such as being told their infection was viral then being given an antibiotic, or were sceptical about the rationale. Participants disliked self-help treatments that involved taking medication and were particularly concerned about painkillers in combination. Steam inhalation was viewed as only moderately helpful for mild symptoms.

conclusionDelayed prescribing is acceptable no matter how the delay is operationalised, but explanation of the rationale is needed and care taken to minimise mixed messages about the severity of illnesses and causation by viruses or bacteria. Better access is needed to good natural history information, and the signs and symptoms requiring or not requiring general practitioner advice. Significant concerns about paracetamol, ibuprofen and steam inhalation are likely to need careful exploration in the consultation.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAcetaminophenAdultAgedAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnti-Bacterial AgentsEnglandFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansIbuprofenInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnti-Bacterial AgentsIbuprofenantibioticsprescribingrespiratory tract infectionself-help

Identifiers

PMID29180593
PMCPMC5719297
OpenAlexW2779133267

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.