Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32321478›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2020

Reducing expectations for antibiotics in primary care: a randomised experiment to test the response to fear-based messages about antimicrobial resistance.

Laurence S J Roope, Sarah Tonkin-Crine, Natalie Herd, Susan Michie, Koen B Pouwels, Enrique Castro-Sanchez, Anna Sallis, Susan Hopkins, Julie V Robotham, Derrick W Crook and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Comparing the Antimicrobial Resistance Crisis to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Public Health Messaging Experiment.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Laurence S J RoopeHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Sarah Tonkin-CrineThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Natalie HerdCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Susan MichieCentre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK.
Koen B PouwelsHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Enrique Castro-SanchezNIHR Health Protection Research Unit, Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance at Imperial College, London, UK.
Anna SallisPublic Health England, London, UK.
Susan HopkinsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julie V RobothamThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Derrick W CrookThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tim PetoThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michele PetersHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Christopher C ButlerThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
A Sarah WalkerThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah WordsworthHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. sarah.wordsworth@ndph.ox.ac.uk.
National Institute for Health Research · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research HPRU-2012-10041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, public health campaigns often provide fear-based information about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Meta-analyses have found that fear-based campaigns in other contexts are likely to be ineffective unless respondents feel confident they can carry out the recommended behaviour ('self-efficacy'). This study aimed to test the likely impact of fear-based messages, with and without empowering self-efficacy elements, on patient consultations/antibiotic requests for influenza-like illnesses, using a randomised design.

methodsWe hypothesised that fear-based messages containing empowering information about self-management without antibiotics would be more effective than fear alone, particularly in a pre-specified subgroup with low AMR awareness. Four thousand respondents from an online panel, representative of UK adults, were randomised to receive three different messages about antibiotic use and AMR, designed to induce fear about AMR to varying degrees. Two messages (one 'strong-fear', one 'mild-fear') also contained empowering information regarding influenza-like symptoms being easily self-managed without antibiotics. The main outcome measures were self-reported effect of information on likelihood of visiting a doctor and requesting antibiotics, for influenza-like illness, analysed separately according to whether or not the AMR information was 'very/somewhat new' to respondents, pre-specified based on a previous (non-randomised) survey.

resultsThe 'fear-only' message was 'very/somewhat new' to 285/1000 (28.5%) respondents, 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' to 336/1500 (22.4%), and 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' to 388/1500 (25.9%) (p = 0.002). Of those for whom the respective information was 'very/somewhat new', only those given the 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' message said they would be less likely to request antibiotics if they visited a doctor for an influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001; 182/388 (46.9%) 'much less likely'/'less likely', versus 116/336 (34.5%) with 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' versus 85/285 (29.8%) with 'fear-alone'). Those for whom the respective information was not 'very/somewhat new' said they would be less likely to request antibiotics for influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001) across all messages (interaction p < 0.0001 versus 'very/somewhat new' subgroup). The three messages had analogous self-reported effects on likelihood of visiting a doctor and in subgroups defined by believing antibiotics would 'definitely/probably' help an influenza-like illness. Results were reproduced in an independent randomised survey (additional 4000 adults).

conclusionsFear could be effective in public campaigns to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, but should be combined with messages empowering patients to self-manage symptoms effectively without antibiotics.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, BacterialFearFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CarePublic Health InformaticsSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial AgentsFear messages about antimicrobial resistanceInappropriate antibiotic usePublic campaigns

Identifiers

PMID32321478
PMCPMC7178623
OpenAlexW3019932432

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.