ArticleBMJ open2024
Perception and views about individualising antibiotic duration for respiratory tract infections when patients feel better: a qualitative study with primary care professionals.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailoring Antibiotic Duration for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Study (STORM).JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Article
- Increase in Antibiotic Utilisation in Primary Care Post COVID-19 Pandemic.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Duration of antibiotic treatment for respiratory tract infections in primary care.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Stop antibiotics when you feel better? Opportunities, challenges and research directions.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Review
- Optimising antibiotic exposure by customising the duration of treatment for respiratory tract infections based on patient needs in primary care.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in primary care. There is increasing evidence showing that shorter courses for RTIs are safe and help in reducing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Stopping antibiotics earlier, as soon as patients feel better, rather than completing antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and AMR.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and views of primary care healthcare professionals about customising antibiotic duration for RTIs by asking patients to stop the antibiotic course when they feel better.
designQualitative research. SETTING AND
participantsA total of 21 qualitative interviews with primary care professionals (experts and non-experts in AMR) were conducted from June to September 2023. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.
resultsOverall, experts seemed more amenable to tailoring the antibiotic duration for RTIs when patients feel better. They also found the dogma of 'completing the course' to be obsolete, as evidence is changing and reducing the duration might lead to less AMR, but claimed that evidence that this strategy is as beneficial and safe as fixed courses was unambiguous. Non-experts, however, believed the dogma of completing the course. Clinicians expressed mixed views on what feeling better might mean, supporting a shared decision-making approach when appropriate. Participants claimed good communication to professionals and patients, but were sceptical about the risk of medicalisation when asking patients to contact clinicians again for a check-up visit.
conclusionsClinicians reported positive and negative views about individualising antibiotic courses for RTIs, but, in general, experts supported a customised antibiotic duration as soon as patients feel better. The information provided by this qualitative study will allow improving the performance of a large randomised clinical trial aimed at evaluating if this strategy is safe and beneficial.
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.