Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39978827›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2025

Healthcare professionals' experiences of de-labelling erroneous penicillin allergy records in general practice: a qualitative study.

Caity Roleston, Marta Santillo, Kelsey F Armitage, Catherine E Porter, Shadia Ahmed, Joanne Fielding, Marta Wanat, Christopher C Butler, Sue Pavitt, Jonathan At Sandoe and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Caity RolestonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK caity.roleston@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2770-887X
Marta SantilloNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6345-7612
Kelsey F ArmitageNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5438-5290
Catherine E PorterLeeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9208-4761
Shadia AhmedLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5841-2804
Joanne FieldingLeeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Marta WanatNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0163-1547
Christopher C ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0102-3453
Sue PavittLeeds Institute of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7447-440X
Jonathan At SandoeDental Translational and Clinical Research Unit, School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0193-8677
Sarah Tonkin-CrineNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-1151
ALABAMA team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPenicillin allergy (PenA) prevalence is approximately 6%, but fewer than 10% of these people are expected to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant proportion of the population are prescribed alternative antibiotics with potential increased risk of acquiring multi-drug resistant bacteria and worse health outcomes. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is effective in de-labelling erroneous records, improving antibiotic prescribing and patient outcomes.

aimTo investigate healthcare professionals' (HCPs') experiences of the ALABAMA trial. DESIGN &

settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews in general practice in England.

methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs (including GPs, research nurses, pharmacists) who delivered the trial. Interviews explored their views about de-labelling incorrect PenA records, their role(s) in the trial, and, where relevant, their experience of prescribing following de-labelling.

resultsHCPs (

conclusionGPs welcomed and accepted the PAAP as a means of correcting erroneous PenA records. There is great potential for PAAP to be supported in primary care if testing becomes more accessible.

Indexed as

allergieshypersensitivityprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID39978827
PMCPMC12728866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.