ArticleBJGP open2025
Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care: a qualitative study.
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 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.
- Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Interactions: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Penicillin allergy de-labelling implementation intervention in a UK hospital: a process evaluation, the patient experience.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbout 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these people are likely to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is denied first-line antibiotics. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) was safe and effective in de-labelling patients as allergic and improving antibiotic prescribing and patient health outcomes.
aimTo investigate patients' experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and their acceptance of de-labelling following a negative allergy test. DESIGN &
settingThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who took part in the PAAP intervention arm of the ALABAMA trial.
methodAs part of a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in the ALABAMA trial, we conducted interviews with patients in the PAAP intervention arm. Data from interviews with patients were analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsOf the 28 participants interviewed, two received a positive PAT result and 26 received a negative PAT result; of these, 24 accepted and two declined de-labelling. At point of trial recruitment, many patients already doubted that they were allergic to penicillin. Patients were happy to attend PAT and felt cared for and safe at the hospital. These factors led to most people trusting their negative test result and accepting de-labelling.
conclusionThe patients we interviewed engaged with the PAAP intervention and, when testing negative, were predominantly willing to have their allergy record changed and to take penicillin in future. We highlight factors that influenced patients' acceptance of de-labelling to facilitate future adoption of PAAP. These factors, which should be considered when planning for penicillin allergy testing services, were as follows: patients identifying themselves as low risk before the test; PAT being perceived as trustworthy and safe; patients' previous experience of penicillin allergy and reactions; patients' understanding of penicillin reactions; and clear communication after de-labelling.
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.