Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32280483›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

Patient engagement with antibiotic messaging in secondary care: a qualitative feasibility study of the 'review and revise' experience.

Fiona Mowbray, Katy Sivyer, Marta Santillo, Nicola Jones, Tim E A Peto, A Sarah Walker, Martin J Llewelyn, Lucy Yardley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Promoting Family/Friend Involvement in Care Planning in Care Homes: A Qualitative Exploration of the Usefulness and Relevance of an Information Resource.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Fiona Mowbray1Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Katy Sivyer1Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Marta Santillo1Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Nicola Jones2Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tim E A Peto2Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
A Sarah Walker2Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Martin J Llewelyn4Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Falmer, UK.
Lucy Yardley1Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0514-20015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to investigate and optimise the acceptability and usefulness of a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing decisions made during hospitalisation, and to explore individual patient experiences and preferences regarding the process of antibiotic prescription 'review and revise' which is a key strategy to minimise antibiotic overuse in hospitals.

methodsIn this qualitative study, run within the feasibility study of a large, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial of 36 hospital organisations, a series of semi-structured, think-aloud telephone interviews were conducted and data were analysed using thematic analysis. Fifteen adult patients who had experienced a recent acute medical hospital admission during which they had been prescribed antimicrobials and offered a patient leaflet about antibiotic prescribing were recruited to the study.

resultsParticipants reacted positively to the leaflet, reporting that it was both an accessible and important source of information which struck the appropriate balance between informing and reassuring. Participants all valued open communication with clinicians, and were keen to be involved in antibiotic prescribing decisions, with individuals reporting positive experiences regarding antibiotic prescription changes or stopping. Many participants had prior experience or knowledge of antibiotics and resistance, and generally welcomed efforts to reduce antibiotic usage. Overall, there was a feeling that healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted experts providing the most appropriate treatment for individual patient conditions.

conclusionsThis study offers novel insights into how patients within secondary care are likely to respond to messages advocating a reduction in the use of antibiotics through the 'review and revise' approach. Due to the level of trust that patients place in their care provider, encouraging HCPs within secondary care to engage patients with greater communication and information provision could provide great advantages in the drive to reduce antibiotic use. It may also be beneficial for HCPs to view patient experiences as cumulative events that have the potential to impact future behaviour around antibiotic use. Finally, pre-testing messages about antibiotic prescribing and resistance is vital to dispelling any misconceptions either around effectiveness of treatment for patients, or perceptions of how messages may be received.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12674243 (10 April 2017).

Indexed as

Antibiotic prescribingAntimicrobial stewardshipHospital patients

Identifiers

PMID32280483
PMCPMC7126355
OpenAlexW3014770658

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.