ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Implementing Information Resources to Support Shared Decisions in Australian Primary Care: A Qualitative Perspective of an Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategy.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesInappropriate use of antibiotics contributes to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria and can result in adverse drug effects for individuals. Informed discussions between patients and general practitioners (GPs) can help ensure that treatment decisions about antibiotic use align with the best health outcomes for individuals.
methodsWe implemented a set of information resources designed to support clinical discussions and decision-making for patients with common infections in primary care. A suite of patient information sheets, which had been co-designed with primary care providers and consumers, were implemented in eight general practices in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, from August to November 2020.
resultsPost-implementation evaluation, conducted through interviews with 15 primary care providers and 13 patients, revealed that the information sheets were simple, easy to use and generated discussion within consultations. GPs reported using the sheets to reinforce their decision-making during consultations with patients, reduce potential conflict, provide alternatives to antibiotic prescriptions, and offer patients a written summary of management recommendations. Patients found the sheets informative and that they made it easier to understand their diagnosis and to manage their conditions. Both GPs and patients agreed that the content was relevant and effectively enhanced patients' knowledge of disease conditions, treatment options, and when to seek medical advice and were facilitators of meaningful conversations during consultations.
conclusionThese resources are acceptable in Australian primary care and publicly available for use by GPs, pharmacists and patients in Australia.
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.