Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41510206›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026

Patient and clinician views on inpatient antibiotic shared decision-making: a qualitative study.

C Roleston, M Wanat, F Mowbray, J Underhill, M Wilcock, S Jacklin, J Amos, K B Bamford, S Hughes, N Marsh and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

C RolestonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
M WanatNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0163-1547
F MowbrayNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
J UnderhillSchool of Allied Health Professions and Pharmacy, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
M WilcockPharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-6272
S JacklinSchool of Allied Health Professions and Pharmacy, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
J AmosPfizer, Tadworth, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3520-7736
K B BamfordClinical Microbiology, Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK.
S HughesPharmacy Department, Chelsea & Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0315-3603
N MarshPharmacy Department, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
S Tonkin-CrineNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-1151
N PowellPharmacy Department, Royal Cornwall Hospital Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-9810

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process between patients and prescribers and identified as a strategy to support antimicrobial stewardship. SDM can improve patient and clinician satisfaction and reduce antibiotic prescribing. However, little is known about how to implement antibiotic SDM in secondary care. Objectives: Identify opportunities for antibiotic SDM between patients and clinicians in secondary care. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior decision makers (registrar or consultant grade) and adult patients who had received antibiotics during their medical or surgical admission, recruited from three secondary care Trusts in England. Interviews explored participants' views on opportunities for SDM when prescribing antibiotics in secondary care, guided by the 'Start Smart, Then Focus' framework. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: 18 clinicians and 20 patients were interviewed. Two themes were identified. In 'Pushing back against SDM', participants challenged the amenability and prioritization of SDM for antibiotics in inpatient settings, related to clinicians being seen as main decision makers, with patients not seeking further involvement. This was reinforced by the perceived urgency of treatment, the fast-paced hospital environment, and the view that antibiotic decisions were either too complex or too straightforward to invite shared input. In 'If not SDM, then what?', participants endorsed bi-directional communication and information provision as alternative priorities, highlighting its value. Conclusions: SDM was not well understood or endorsed for antibiotic prescribing decision making in secondary care. Further work is warranted to educate and upskill clinicians in SDM as a concept within secondary care.

Identifiers

PMID41510206
PMCPMC12775835

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.