Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444966›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2025

The influence of social relationships on clinician interpretation of performance data in an outpatient antibiotic stewardship intervention.

Julia E Szymczak, Lindsay W Glassman, Brandi M Muller, Ebbing Lautenbach, Keith W Hamilton, Lauren Dutcher, CDC Prevention Epicenters Program

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 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. Review
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

7 authors.

Julia E SzymczakDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, IN217, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. julia.szymczak@hsc.utah.edu.
Lindsay W GlassmanDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Brandi M MullerDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine, University of Utah, 295 Chipeta Way, IN217, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
Ebbing LautenbachDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Keith W HamiltonDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lauren DutcherDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
CDC Prevention Epicenters Program

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) of performance is a common strategy to improve antibiotic prescribing, yet it is variably successful. Little is known about the impact of social relationships on the implementation of A&F interventions in antibiotic stewardship. Our objective was to identify how social context influences primary care clinicians' perceptions of A&F received as part of a stewardship intervention.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians who participated in a stewardship intervention in the Eastern United States. Interviews were conducted in the year following the intervention and respondents were purposively sampled by their performance: (1) sustained high performance, (2) improved performance, and (3) no improvement. Snowball sampling was used to deepen our understanding of practice context. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method.

resultsInterviews were conducted with 32 clinicians from 15 practices. Two clinicians were recruited via snowball. Thirty respondents were exposed to the intervention (of 183 clinicians in the intervention). Of these 30 respondents, 13 sustained high performance, 7 improved, and 10 did not improve. The content of responses by group varied in descriptions of the influence of social relationships on clinician understanding of feedback. Three relationships were identified as important: 1) with the health system, 2) with the practice, and 3) with patients. Clinicians with consistently high or improved performance described being understanding of and responsive to the demands of the health system and having a unified approach to judicious prescribing in their practice. They also expressed confidence in navigating patient demand for antibiotics. Clinicians whose performance did not improve were either annoyed by, anxious about, or dismissive of the health system's expectations, had low levels of interactions with colleagues in their practice surrounding antibiotics and prescribing norms at the practice that catered to patient expectations for antibiotics. They also reported difficulty in negotiating patient demand for antibiotics.

conclusionsThis study examines clinician reactions to the implementation of a feedback intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Our study demonstrates that clinicians use social relationships to make sense of performance feedback, which may influence the formation and execution of behavioral intentions in response to feedback.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleOutpatientsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticsAntibiotic stewardshipAudit and feedbackPrimary careQualitative methodsSocial context

Identifiers

PMID41444966
PMCPMC12849406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.