Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32204383›Full record

ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Improving Management of Respiratory Tract Infections in Community Pharmacies and Promoting Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Cluster Randomised Control Trial with a Self-Report Behavioural Questionnaire and Process Evaluation.

Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Anne Doble, Tracey Thornley, Ayoub Saei, Natalie Gold, Anna Sallis, Cliodna A M McNulty, Donna Lecky, Eno Umoh, Chaamala Klinger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Diane Ashiru-OredopeHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9579-2028
Anne DobleHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9755-4170
Tracey ThornleyPharmacy Outcomes and Research, Boots UK, Nottingham NG90 1BS, UK.
Ayoub SaeiHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Natalie GoldBehavioural Insights team, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Anna SallisBehavioural Insights team, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Cliodna A M McNultyHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Donna LeckyHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Eno UmohHCAI and AMR division, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.
Chaamala KlingerPHE South West, Public Health England, London SE1 8UG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7470-536X
Public Health England · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In England, 81% of all antibiotic prescriptions originate in primary care/community settings, of which up to 20% are thought to be inappropriate. Community pharmacies are often the first point of community contact for patients with suspected infections; providing an opportunity for community pharmacy teams to promote antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). The objective of the study was to improve the management of infections and antimicrobial stewardship in community pharmacies. The study methodology included a non-blinded cluster randomised control trial with pharmacy staff in 272 community pharmacies in England. The intervention arm received an AMS webinar and a patient facing respiratory tract infection (RTI) leaflet (TARGET TYI-RTI) for use in everyday practice for four weeks. The control arm received a webinar on how to participate in the study. The primary outcome was self-reported referrals to general practitioners (GPs). The secondary outcomes were; provision of self-care advice/ written information to patients, referrals to pharmacists, sign-posting to non-prescription medicines and common barriers and facilitators to advice-giving in community pharmacies. Ethics approval was granted by the Public Health England Research Ethics and Governance Group. 66.91% (182 of 272) of pharmacies provided 3649 patient consultation data reports across both arms. Use of the leaflet was associated with a lower likelihood of referrals to GPs for certain RTIs (p < 0.05) and a more frequent provision of self-care advice than the control (p = 0.06). Opportunities to deliver self-care advice were limited due to lack of time. Pharmacy staff had good motivation and capability for managing self-limiting infections but the opportunity to do so was a perceived barrier. Use of the TARGET leaflet facilitated pharmacy staff to give more self-care advice and decreased referrals to GPs.

Indexed as

antibiotic pharmacistbehaviour changeevaluationgeneral practiceprimary careself-care

Identifiers

PMID32204383
PMCPMC7151711
OpenAlexW3011110036

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.