ArticleHealth services research2019
An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse.
Article in Health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Hybrid 2D/3D-quantitative structure-activity relationship studies on the bioactivities and molecular mechanism of antibacterial peptides.Amino acids · 2024Article
- Misconceptions and Knowledge Gaps on Antibiotic Use and Resistance in Four Healthcare Settings and Five European Countries-A Modified Delphi Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Perceptions regarding antimicrobial use and resistance among adult hospital patients in Saudi Arabian Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2020Article
- Revisiting patient expectations and experiences of antibiotics in an era of antimicrobial resistance: Qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse.Health services research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand public attitudes about and recommendations to address antibiotic overuse by employing public deliberation (a method for eliciting informed input on value-laden issues). DATA SOURCES/STUDY
settingParticipants in 24 Community Deliberation groups (CD; n = 263), four Citizens' Panel groups (CP; n = 96), and a control group (n = 348). Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. LOCATIONS: STUDY
designUsing mixed methods, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a randomized control trial. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsUsing pre/postdeliberation surveys, we compared CD and CP participant attitude changes regarding antibiotic use to the control group. We analyzed deliberation transcripts using qualitative techniques to provide context for survey results. PRINCIPAL
findingsCompared to control group participants, CD and CP participants had a larger postdeliberation shift in attitudes toward support of government limits on when doctors can prescribe antibiotics. Participants described unawareness about antibiotic overuse and called for education. When discussing prescription limits, participants debated tensions between preserving patient/doctor autonomy and protecting society from antibiotic-related harms. Participants saw patient, physician, and government roles in antibiotic stewardship policies/programs.
conclusionWhen informed about individual and social consequences of antibiotic overuse, patients may be more receptive to antibiotic prescription limits. Community-physician-government partnerships are needed to create solutions.
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.