A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics. RESULTS: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs. CONCLUSIONS: A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

Information about the natural history of acute infections commonly seen in primary care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Many of the acute infections that are seen in primary care and sometimes managed with antibiotics are self-resolving and antibiotics may be unnecessary. Information about the natural history of these infections underpins antibiotic stewardship strategies such as delayed prescribing and shared decision making, yet whether it's reported in guidelines is unknown. We examined, in clinical guidelines, the reporting of natural history information and relevant antibiotic stewardship strategies for acute infections commonly seen in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of national and international guidelines (2010 onwards), available electronically, for managing acute infections (respiratory, urinary, or skin and soft tissue). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP, and GIN databases and websites of 22 guideline-publishing organisations. RESULTS: We identified 82 guidelines, covering 114 eligible infections. Natural history information was reported in 49 (59.8%) of the guidelines and 66 (57.9%) of the reported conditions, most commonly for respiratory tract infections. Quantitative information about the expected infection duration was provided for 63.5% (n = 42) of the infections. Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy was recommended for 34.2% (n = 39) of them and shared decision making for 21% (n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: Just over half of the guidelines for acute infections that are commonly managed in primary care and sometimes with antibiotics contained natural history information. As many of these infections spontaneously improve, this is a missed opportunity to disseminate this information to clinicians, promote antibiotic stewardship, and facilitate conversations with patients and informed decision making. Systematic review registration CRD42021247048.

Evaluation of Autism-Related Health Information on the Web.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is a frequently accessed source of information for parents of a child with autism. To help parents make informed decisions about treatment options, websites should contain accurate information. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of information in a sample of autism-relevant websites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Autism-related keywords were entered into three widely used search engines in April 2013 and the 20 most frequently appearing sites identified. Website quality was rated, by two independent raters, using the DISCERN tool. Websites were also coded according to the type of references/sources provided to support the intervention content presented. RESULTS: The mean DISCERN score was 46.5 (range 23-67.5), of a possible 80. Information about treatment risks and no treatment as an option was rarely described. Only six (30%) websites provided research references when describing intervention options. CONCLUSIONS: Many websites did not meet criteria for quality health information and failed to cite evidence supporting described interventions. Implications of these findings are discussed.

General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of medical care is a pervasive problem. Studies using hypothetical scenarios suggest that physicians' risk literacy influences medical decisions; real-world correlations, however, are lacking. We sought to determine the association between physicians' risk literacy and their real-world prescriptions of potentially hazardous drugs, accounting for conflicts of interest and perceptions of benefit-harm ratios in low-value prescribing scenarios. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study-conducted online between June and October 2023 via field panels of Sermo (Hamburg, Germany)-with a convenience sample of 304 English general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: GPs' survey responses on their treatment-related risk literacy, conflicts of interest and perceptions of the benefit-harm ratio in low-value prescribing scenarios were matched to their UK National Health Service records of prescribing volumes for antibiotics, opioids, gabapentin and benzodiazepines and analysed for differences. RESULTS: 204 GPs (67.1%) worked in practices with ≥6 practising GPs and 226 (76.0%) reported 10-39 years of experience. Compared with GPs demonstrating low risk literacy, GPs with high literacy prescribed fewer opioids (mean (M): 60.60 vs 43.88 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.016), less gabapentin (M: 23.84 vs 18.34 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.023), and fewer benzodiazepines (M: 17.23 vs 13.58 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.037), but comparable volumes of antibiotics (M: 48.84 vs 40.61 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.076). High-risk literacy was associated with lower conflicts of interest (ϕ = 0.12, p=0.031) and higher perception of harms outweighing benefits in low-value prescribing scenarios (p=0.007). Conflicts of interest and benefit-harm perceptions were not independently associated with prescribing behaviour (all ps >0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The observed association between GPs with higher risk literacy and the prescription of fewer hazardous drugs suggests the importance of risk literacy in enhancing patient safety and quality of care.

Exploring general practitioners' perception of the value of natural history information and their awareness and use of guidelines' resources to support antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting infections: a qualitative study in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid. CONCLUSIONS: GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.

Two Decades of Overuse and Underuse of Interventions for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review.

Quality use of anti-hypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications is crucial for successful cardiovascular disease management. This systematic review aimed to estimate levels of over and underuse of services for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases from 2000 to 2020: overprescribing/underprescribing, overtesting/undertesting and overutilization/ underutilization of procedures compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations. Thirteen studies from USA, Europe, Asia and Australia were included. Wide practice variation was identified. Six studies reported overuse (eg, perioperative cardiac consultations, anti-hypertensive overprescribing for normotensive or pre-hypertensive people); and ten studies reported underuse (eg, under-prescribing of statins when indicated and under-screening for familial hypercholesterolemia). Lifestyle recommendations for cardiovascular disease prevention were largely underused. In summary, lack of adherence to published guidelines was prevalent over the past 2 decades for both primary and secondary prevention across settings. Further investigation of potentially justifiable deviations from guidelines are warranted to verify the estimates and identify points for intervention.

How can general practitioners reduce antibiotic prescribing in collaboration with their patients?

BACKGROUND: Most antibiotics prescribed in primary care are for acute, and often self-limiting, conditions. Patients' expectations of needing antibiotics are an influential driver of general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing behaviour. Better managing patient expectations in consultations for acute infections may be important for reducing prescribing, particularly for self-limiting conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to increase awareness about patients' beliefs and expectations about antibiotics for acute conditions and provide strategies and resources that GPs can use in collaboration with their patients for managing these expectations. DISCUSSION: Expectations of antibiotics may reflect a desire for symptomatic treatment, lack of awareness of other options or previous experience. Consultations for many acute conditions are particularly suited to shared decision making - it enables discussion about expectations and antibiotic benefits and harms and assists patients to make an informed decision. Delayed prescribing is another evidence-based strategy that can be used as part of shared decision making.

Shared decision making and physical therapy: What, when, how, and why?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is a means of translating evidence into practice and facilitating patient-centred care by helping patients to become more active in the decision-making process. Shared decision making is a collaborative process that involves patients and clinicians making health-related decisions after discussing the available options; the benefits and harms of each option; and considering the patient's values, preferences, and personal circumstances. METHODS: This paper describes what shared decision making is, why it is important, when it is appropriate, and key elements. We report on physical therapists' current use of and attitudes to shared decision making and explore factors that influence its uptake. Lastly, we examine what is needed to promote greater use of this approach. RESULTS: Key elements in the shared decision making process are: identifying the problem that requires a decision; providing an explanation of the health problem, including, where appropriate, the natural history of the condition; discussing the available options and the potential benefits and harms of each option; eliciting the patient's values, preferences, and expectations; and assisting the patient to weigh up the options to reach an informed decision. When applied in practice, shared decision making has been found to improve patient-clinician communication; improve patients' accuracy of their expectations of intervention benefits and harms, involvement in decision-making, and feeling of being informed; and increase both patients' and clinicians' satisfaction with care. CONCLUSION: Despite physical therapists' enthusiasm for shared decision making, uptake of this approach has been slow. Multi-level strategies and behaviour change are required to encourage and support the sustainable incorporation of shared decision making in practice.

Guideline Adherence As An Indicator of the Extent of Antithrombotic Overuse and Underuse: A Systematic Review.

Thromboembolic events are a common risk in adults with atrial fibrillation, those with previous cerebrovascular accidents and undergoing emergency or elective surgeries. The widespread availability of antithrombotic agents and differing guidelines contribute to practice variations and increased risk of complications and deaths. The objective of this review was to investigate the extent of overuse and underuse of antithrombotics for primary or secondary prevention as measured by deviation from prescribing guideline recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of Medline and EMBASE for quantitative articles published between 2000 and 2021 and used a modified version of the Hoy's risk of bias assessment tool. Here we report evidence from the past decade about wide practice variations in hospitals and primary care, and discuss clinician and patient-driven determinants of non-adherence to guidelines. Finally, we summarise implications for practice, identify enhanced ways of measuring overuse and underuse, and propose potential solutions to the measurement challenges.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia.

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.

Natural history of non-bullous impetigo: a systematic review of time to resolution or improvement without antibiotic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Non-bullous impetigo is typically treated with antibiotics. However, the duration of symptoms without their use has not been established, which hampers informed decision making about antibiotic use. AIM: To determine the natural history of non-bullous impetigo. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed up to January 2020, as well as reference lists of articles identified in the search. Eligible studies involved participants with impetigo in either the placebo group of randomised trials, or in single-group prognostic studies that did not use antibiotics and measured time to resolution or improvement. A modified version of a risk of bias assessment for prognostic studies was used. Outcomes were percentage of participants who had either symptom resolution, symptom improvement, or failed to improve at any timepoint. Adverse event data were also extracted. RESULTS: Seven randomised trials (557 placebo group participants) were identified. At about 7 days, the percentage of participants classified as resolved ranged from 13% to 74% across the studies, whereas the percentage classified as 'failure to improve' ranged from 16% to 41%. The rate of adverse effects was low. Incomplete reporting of some details limited assessment of risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Although some uncertainty around the natural history of non-bullous impetigo remains, symptoms resolve in some patients by about 7 days without using antibiotics, with about one-quarter of patients not improving. Immediate antibiotic use may not be mandatory, and discussions with patients should include the expected course of untreated impetigo and careful consideration of the benefits and harms of antibiotic use.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers. RESULTS: Interview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners' perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.

mHealth App Prescription in Australian General Practice: Pre-Post Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) apps as well as their usability as non-drug interventions in primary care are emerging around the globe. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the feasibility of mHealth app prescription by general practitioners (GPs) and to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to increase app prescription. METHODS: A single-group, before-and-after study was conducted in Australian general practice. GPs were given prescription pads for 6 mHealth apps and reported the number of prescriptions dispensed for 4 months. After the reporting of month 2, a 2-minute video of one of the apps was randomly selected and sent to each GP. Data were collected through a prestudy questionnaire, monthly electronic reporting, and end-of-study interviews. The primary outcome was the number of app prescriptions (total, monthly, per GP, and per GP per fortnight). Secondary outcomes included confidence in prescribing apps (0-5 scale), the impact of the intervention video on subsequent prescription numbers, and acceptability of the interventions. RESULTS: Of 40 GPs recruited, 39 commenced, and 36 completed the study. In total, 1324 app prescriptions were dispensed over 4 months. The median number of apps prescribed per GP was 30 (range 6-111 apps). The median number of apps prescribed per GP per fortnight increased from the pre-study level of 1.7 to 4.1. Confidence about prescribing apps doubled from a mean of 2 (not so confident) to 4 (very confident). App videos did not affect subsequent prescription rates substantially. Post-study interviews revealed that the intervention was highly acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth app prescription in general practice is feasible, and our implementation intervention was effective in increasing app prescription. GPs need more tailored education and training on the value of mHealth apps and knowledge of prescribable apps to be able to successfully change their prescribing habits to include apps. The future of sustainable and scalable app prescription requires a trustworthy electronic app repository of prescribable mHealth apps for GPs.

Shared decision making should be an integral part of physiotherapy practice.

Shared decision making is integral to high-quality, evidence-based, and patient-centred physiotherapy practice. It involves therapists and patients collaboratively making a health-related decision after having discussed the options, the likely benefits and harms of each option, and considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. Despite being a crucial part of the final step in evidence-based practice, the skills needed to facilitate shared decision making are rarely taught to physiotherapists. This Debate article explores the reasons for the importance of shared decision making to physiotherapy practice; its fundamental role in improving therapist-patient communication, informed decision-making, and evidence-based care; and illustrates some of the processes involved using clinical scenarios.

The Elephant in the Room: Too Much Medicine in Musculoskeletal Practice.

While advances in assessment and management of musculoskeletal conditions have improved care for many people, there have been other, less beneficial developments in the provision of care for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions, one of which is the worrying tendency to provide too much medicine. Too much medicine occurs when the provision of either investigation or intervention (or both) is unjustifiably excessive. Another concern in musculoskeletal health care is medicalizing normality-when a normal human function or condition is labeled as abnormal. In this Viewpoint, the authors argue that medicalizing normality creates health concerns where none exist, while too much medicine involves provision of care where benefits do not outweigh harms, and wastes precious health care resources. The authors (1) list 2 common examples of too much medicine, and 2 examples of medicalizing normality, relevant to physical therapy practice; (2) outline the drivers of too much medicine and medicalizing normality; and (3) make suggestions for change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):1-4. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0601.

Natural history of uncomplicated urinary tract infection without antibiotics: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is commonly treated with antibiotics, the duration of symptoms without their use is not established; this hampers informed decision making about antibiotic use. AIM: To determine the natural history of uncomplicated UTI in adults. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: PubMed was searched for articles published until November 2019, along with reference lists of articles identified in the search. Eligible studies were those involving adults with UTIs in either the placebo group of randomised trials or in single-group prognostic studies that did not use antibiotics and measured symptom duration. A modified version of a risk of bias assessment for prognostic studies was used. Outcomes were the percentage of patients who, at any time point, were symptom free, had symptom improvement, or had worsening symptoms (failed to improve). Adverse event data were also extracted. RESULTS: Three randomised trials (346 placebo group participants) were identified, all of which specified women only in their inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally low, but incomplete reporting of some details limited assessment. Over the first 9 days, the percentage of participants who were symptom free or reported improved symptoms was reported as rising to 42%. At 6 weeks, the percentage of such participants was 36%; up to 39% of participants failed to improve by 6 weeks. The rate of adverse effects was low and, in two trials, progression to pyelonephritis was reported in one placebo participant. CONCLUSION: Although some uncertainty around the natural history of uncomplicated UTIs remains, some women appear to improve or become symptom free spontaneously, and most improvement occurs in the first 9 days. Other women either failed to improve or became worse over a variable timespan, although the rate of serious complications was low.

Comparing the quantity and quality of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antibiotics for acute respiratory, urinary, and skin and soft tissue infections: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) should be guided by high quality evidence. AIM: To compare the quantity and quality of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antibiotics for ARIs, UTIs, and SSTIs. DESIGN & SETTING: A scoping review of the literature was performed using comprehensive search strategies. METHOD: PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for published studies from inception until 17 April 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared participants in primary care or in the community who had uncomplicated acute ARI, UTI, or studies, and were randomised to antibiotic or placebo (or no active treatment), were eligible for inclusion. Two groups of researchers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. RESULTS: A total of 108 eligible studies were identified: 80 on ARI, eight on UTI, and 20 on SSTI. The quality of studies varied with unclear risk of bias (RoB) prevalent in many domains. There was a gradual improvement in the quality of trials investigating ARIs over time, which could not be assessed in SSTI and UTI studies. CONCLUSION: This review highlights a sparsity of trials assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics in people with UTIs and SSTIs, compared to trials targeting ARIs. This gap in the evidence needs to be addressed by conducting further high quality trials on the effects of antibiotics in patients with UTI and SSTI.