Trial reportBMJ open2022
Mixed-methods evaluation of a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04108637 (Penicillin Allergy Status And Its Effect On Antibiotic Prescribing, Patient Outcomes, and Antimicrobial Resistance), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Penicillin Allergy Status And Its Effect On Antibiotic Prescribing, Patient Outcomes, and Antimicrobial Resistance
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of a drug allergy education course for non-specialists: Findings from ADAPT-A randomized crossover trial.Allergy · 2025Trial
- What are patients' and healthcare professionals' views on managing penicillin allergy? A qualitative evidence synthesis.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Healthcare professionals' experiences of de-labelling erroneous penicillin allergy records in general practice: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Vancomycin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAbout 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these are likely to be truly allergic. In the ALABAMA (Allergy Antibiotics and Microbial resistance) feasibility trial, primary care patients with penicillin allergy were randomised to penicillin allergy assessment pathway or usual care to assess the effect on health outcomes. A behavioural intervention package was developed to aid delabelling. This study aimed to investigate patients' and clinicians' views of penicillin allergy testing (PAT).
designWe conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within the ALABAMA trial, which included a clinician survey, a patient survey (at baseline and follow-up) and semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in primary care, as part of the feasibility stage of the ALABAMA trial.
participantsPatients and primary care clinicians.
resultsClinicians (N=53; 52.2%) were positive about PAT and its potential value but did not have previous experience of referring patients for a PAT and were unsure whether patients would take penicillin after a negative allergy test. Patients (N=36; 46%) were unsure whether they were severely allergic to penicillin and did not fear a severe allergic reaction to penicillin. Clinician interviews showed that they were already aware of the benefit of PAT. Interviews with patients suggested the importance of safety as patients valued having numerous opportunities to address their concerns about safety of the test.
conclusionsThis study highlights the positive effects of the ALABAMA behavioural intervention for both patients and clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04108637; ISRCTN20579216; Pre-results.
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.