Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35387816›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

What the public in England know about antibiotic use and resistance in 2020: a face-to-face questionnaire survey.

Cliodna McNulty, Brieze Read, Anna Quigley, Neville Q Verlander, Donna M Lecky

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Knowledge and Attitudes of Patients About the Rational Use of Antibiotics.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2024
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cliodna McNultyPrimary Care and Interventions Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Gloucester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4969-5360
Brieze ReadPrimary Care and Interventions Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Gloucester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6547-6136
Anna QuigleySocial Research Institute, Ipsos MORI UK Ltd, London, UK.
Neville Q VerlanderStatistics, Modelling and Economics Department, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK.
Donna M LeckyPrimary Care and Interventions Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Gloucester, UK Donna.lecky@phe.gov.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1223-9356
UK Health Security Agency · GBDMG Mori (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe public attitudes and knowledge around antibiotic activity, resistance and use.

designFace-to-face household 18 question survey using computer-assisted data collection undertaken by Ipsos Market and Opinion Research International.

settingRandomly selected households across England, January-February 2020.

participants2022 adults (aged 15+,) including 521 black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) participants, and 406 aged 15-25 years olds.

main outcome measuresResponses to questions about antibiotic activity, resistance and expectations for antibiotics and trust in healthcare professionals. Analyses were weighted to obtain estimates representative of the population with multivariable analysis undertaken for questions with five or more significant univariate variables.

results84% stated they would be pleased if their general practitioner (GP) said they did not need antibiotics. Trust in GPs to make antibiotic decisions remains high (89%) and has increased for nurses (76%) and pharmacists (71%). Only 21% would challenge an antibiotic decision; this was significantly greater in BAME participants (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.89 to 3.35). 70% reported receiving advice when prescribed antibiotics. Belief in benefits of antibiotics for ear infections was very high (68%). Similar to 2017, 81% agreed that antibiotics work for bacterial, 28% cold and influenza viruses. 84% agreed antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) are increasing, only 50% agreed healthy people can carry ARB and 39% agreed there was nothing they personally could do about ARB. Social grade DE and BAME participants, and those with less education had significantly less understanding about antibiotics and resistance.

conclusionsAs trust in healthcare practitioners is high, we need to continue antibiotic education and other interventions at GP surgeries and community pharmacies but highlight that most ear infections are not benefitted by antibiotics. Targeted interventions are needed for socioeconomic DE, BAME groups and previous antibiotic users. We need to explore if increasing perceived personal responsibility for preventing ARB reduces antibiotic use.

Indexed as

Angiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAdolescentAdultAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsEthnicityHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsAngiotensin Receptor AntagonistsAnti-Bacterial Agentsinfection controlpublic health

Identifiers

PMID35387816
PMCPMC8987214
OpenAlexW4223421681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.