Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29300965›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2018

An evaluation of the TARGET (Treat Antibiotics Responsibly; Guidance, Education, Tools) Antibiotics Toolkit to improve antimicrobial stewardship in primary care-is it fit for purpose?

Leah Ffion Jones, Meredith K D Hawking, Rebecca Owens, Donna Lecky, Nick A Francis, Chris Butler, Micaela Gal, Cliodna A M McNulty

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Leah Ffion JonesPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Meredith K D HawkingPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Rebecca OwensPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Donna LeckyPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.
Nick A FrancisDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Chris ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Micaela GalDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Cliodna A M McNultyPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The TARGET (Treat Antibiotics Responsibly; Guidance, Education, Tools) Antibiotics Toolkit aims to improve antimicrobial prescribing in primary care through guidance, interactive workshops with action planning, patient facing educational and audit materials. Objective: To explore GPs', nurses' and other stakeholders' views of TARGET. Design: Mixed methods. Method: In 2014, 40 UK GP staff and 13 stakeholders participated in interviews or focus groups. We analysed data using a thematic framework and normalization process theory (NPT). Results: Two hundred and sixty-nine workshop participants completed evaluation forms, and 40 GP staff, 4 trainers and 9 relevant stakeholders participated in interviews (29) or focus groups (24). GP staffs were aware of the issues around antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and how it related to their prescribing. Most participants stated that TARGET as a whole was useful. Participants suggested the workshop needed less background on AMR, be centred around clinical cases and allow more action planning time. Participants particularly valued comparison of their practice antibiotic prescribing with others and the TARGET Treating Your Infection leaflet. The leaflet needed greater accessibility via GP computer systems. Due to time, cost, accessibility and competing priorities, many GP staff had not fully utilized all resources, especially the audit and educational materials. Conclusions: We found evidence that the workshop is likely to be more acceptable and engaging if based around clinical scenarios, with less on AMR and more time on action planning. Greater promotion of TARGET, through Clinical Commissioning Group's (CCG's) and professional bodies, may improve uptake. Patient facing resources should be made accessible through computer shortcuts built into general practice software.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHealth PromotionHumansInterviews as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative ResearchAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID29300965
PMCPMC6057505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.