Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30099085›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infection2019

Public acceptability of computer-controlled antibiotic management: An exploration of automated dosing and opportunities for implementation.

Timothy M Rawson, Damien Ming, Sally An Gowers, David Me Freeman, Pau Herrero, Pantelis Georgiou, Anthony E Cass, Danny O'Hare, Alison H Holmes

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Timothy M RawsonNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom. Electronic address: tmr07@ic.ac.uk.
Damien MingNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.
Sally An GowersDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
David Me FreemanDepartment of Chemistry, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Pau HerreroDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Pantelis GeorgiouDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Anthony E CassDepartment of Chemistry, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Danny O'HareDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Alison H HolmesNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Campus, Du Cane Road, London W12 0NN, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health II-LA-0214-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A paucity of data describing citizen perceptions of novel technologies, including those containing unsupervised computer-controlled systems is currently available. We explored citizen perceptions of using a microneedle biosensor and automated dose control system at a university public festival. Groups of citizens (from 2-6 people per group) attended a short demonstration of a microneedle biosensor and automated dosing system versus a traditional phlebotomy approach over a two-day public festival. Individual groups discussed and reached consensus on a number of short questions regarding their perceptions on the acceptability of such technology. Over the two days, 100 groups participated (56/100 day 1 and 44/100 day 2). The majority of individuals reported high acceptability of microneedle technology (median Likert score 9/10), but the majority believed that doctors should decide what dose of antibiotic is delivered (75/100; 75%). Groups concurred with the acceptability of microneedles to reduce blood tests and pain associated with them. However, concerns were reported over unsupervised computer-controlled programmes making decision about antibiotic dosing. This was driven by concerns over computer error and the inability of systems to contextualise decision making to the human and social context. Future work must consider the greater role of citizen engagement in the development of such technologies, to ensure their acceptability upon implementation in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCommunicable DiseasesDecision MakingHumansOligonucleotidesAnti-Bacterial AgentsOligonucleotidesBiosensorsMachine learningPatient and public engagement

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.