ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Hospitalised patients as stewards of their own antibiotic therapy: a qualitative analysis informing the strategic design of interventions to encourage shared decision-making in tertiary hospital settings in Singapore.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multilevel barriers to antimicrobial stewardship in tertiary care hospitals: A comparative systematic scoping review of high-income versus low-/middle-income countries evidence mapped by study design and healthcare professionals.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Patient and clinician views on inpatient antibiotic shared decision-making: a qualitative study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) on antibiotic therapy may improve antibiotic use in tertiary hospitals, but hospitalised patients are apprehensive about being involved in it. Understanding the facilitators and barriers to SDM can inform the design and implementation of interventions to empower these patients to engage in SDM on their antibiotic therapies. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 23 adult patients purposively sampled with maximum variation from the three largest tertiary-care hospitals in Singapore (April 2019─October 2020). Thematic analysis was conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model to identify areas for intervention. Results: Hospitalised patients lacked comprehensive knowledge of their antibiotic therapies and the majority did not have the skills to actively query their doctors about them. There was a lack of opportunities to meet and interact with doctors, and patients were less motivated to engage in SDM if they had a self-perceived paternalistic relationship with doctors, trusted their doctors to provide the best treatment, and had self-perceived poor knowledge to engage in SDM. To empower these patients, they should first be educated with antibiotic knowledge. Highlighting potential side effects of antibiotics could motivate them to ask questions about their antibiotic therapies. Environment restructuring, as facilitated by nurses and visual cues to nudge conversations, could create opportunities for interactions and motivating patients into SDM on their antibiotic therapies. Conclusion: Education and environmental restructuring should be explored to empower hospitalised patients to engage in SDM on their antibiotic therapies.
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.