ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2023
Patient Perspectives on the Drivers and Deterrents of Antibiotic Treatment of Acute Rhinosinusitis: a Qualitative Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions for Managing Community Adult Acute Respiratory Infections: Qualitative Analysis from the OPTIMAS-GP Study Co-Design Phase.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Patients' perspectives regarding antibiotic treatment for acute sinusitis in Norwegian general practice. A qualitative interview study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Impact of a multifaceted intervention including supportive care order sentence implementation on outpatient antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotics are prescribed in >80% of outpatient acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) visits, despite the low incidence of bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown patient expectations are the most robust predictor of antibiotics prescription in ARS. However, patient perceptions are not well known or understood.
objectiveTo understand patient perceptions regarding what drives or deters them from wanting, seeking, and taking antibiotic treatment of ARS.
designIterative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews.
participantsNineteen adults diagnosed with ARS within the prior 60 days at the Northwestern Medicine General Internal Medicine clinic in Chicago, IL. MAIN MEASURES: Perceptions of patients with ARS. KEY
resultsWe interviewed 19 patients, identifying the following drivers of antibiotic use: (1) symptoms, especially discolored rhinorrhea, and seeking relief, (2) belief that antibiotics are a convenient and/or effective way to relieve/cure sinusitis, and (3) desire for tangible outcomes of a clinic visit. For deterrents, the following themes emerged: (1) concern about antibiotic resistance, (2) preference for other treatments or preference to avoid medications, and (3) desire to avoid a healthcare visit. Patients identified that a trustworthy physician's recommendation for antibiotics was a driver, and a recommendation against antibiotics was a deterrent to taking antibiotics; a delayed antibiotic prescription also served as a deterrent. Antibiotic side effects were viewed neutrally by most participants, though they were a deterrent to some.
conclusionsPatients have misconceptions about the indications and effectiveness of antibiotics for ARS. Intimate knowledge of key antibiotic drivers and deterrents, from the perspective of patients with ARS, can be leveraged to engage and increase patients' knowledge, and set appropriate expectations for antibiotics for ARS.
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.