Changes in public health-seeking behaviours for self-limiting respiratory tract infections across England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: National Health Service (NHS) guidance for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) advocates self-care, encourages utilization of local pharmacies and recommends consulting general practitioners (GPs) primarily for the vulnerable or those with persistent symptoms. Coronavirus disease 2019 exerted substantial strain on the English NHS, affecting public access to primary care services. METHODS: For 3 years, public surveys assessed RTI incidences in the previous 12 months and associated health-seeking behaviours. Telephone surveys of 1676 respondents across England were conducted in March 2021 and 1663 respondents in March 2022. Findings were compared with a face-to-face baseline survey of 2022 respondents from March 2020. Key demographics were representative of the population. RESULTS: In 2021, the proportion of respondents who reported an RTI (51%) significantly declined from 2020 (70%, P < 0.05), then returned to pre-pandemic rates in 2022 (67%). Respondents reported more proactive symptom management in both 2021 and 2022 from 2020: there were greater reports of seeking over-the-counter treatments (55%, 55% vs. 35%, P < 0.05) and use of alternative remedies (38%, 38% vs. 21%, P < 0.05). 2022 observed a reduction in those who reported consulting their GP for their most recent RTI (15%) compared to 2021 (25%, P < 0.05) and 2020 (23%), which was not accounted for through greater consultation rates with other healthcare services. CONCLUSIONS: Public health bodies should consider how pandemic-related changes may have facilitated increased self-care for self-limiting infections such as RTIs. Resources and support must include safety-netting advice to safeguard against unintentional consequences of increased self-care.

Primary care preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a survey of NHS GPs.

BACKGROUND: Primary care manages a significant proportion of healthcare in the United Kingdom and should be a key part of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. AIM: To assess preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by understanding GPs' perception of their ability to manage current and future service demand, set-up of triage processes, and training in Covid-19 infection prevention and control procedures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of practicing GPs in the United Kingdom, with 2 rounds of data collection early in the pandemic. METHODS: Online survey, scripted and hosted by medeConnect Healthcare, comprising 6 closed prompts on 7-point Likert scales, and an optional free-text component. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: One thousand two GPs completed each round; 51 GPs completed free-text responses in March, and 64 in April. Quantitative data showed greatest confidence in triage of Covid-19 patients, and GPs were more confident managing current than future Covid-19 demand. GPs' responses were more optimistic and aligned in April than March. Free-text data highlighted that GPs were concerned about lack of appropriate personal protective equipment and personal risk of Covid-19 infection in March, and unmet needs of non-Covid-19 patients in April. In both rounds, GPs expressed feeling overlooked by government and public health bodies. CONCLUSION: Guidance to support general practice clinicians to manage future waves of Covid-19 or other health emergencies must be tailored to general practice from the outset, to support clinicians to manage competing health demands, and mitigate impacts on primary care providers' wellbeing.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has posed significant challenges for the health services in the United Kingdom and abroad. A Doctors Association UK poll published in early March 2020 found that only 1% of 800 GPs believed the NHS was well prepared for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We surveyed 1,002 GPs across the United Kingdom to gauge how well prepared they felt to cope with the challenges posed by Covid-19. We conducted surveys in March and April 2020, an important time early in the pandemic with rapid changes and uncertainty. We found that GPs were more confident about their ability to manage Covid-19 patients, and do so safely, in April. GPs were most confident that they would be able to triage Covid-19 patients but were concerned about future Covid-19 demand. GPs expressed frustration about a lack of personal protective equipment in March. In April, GPs' primary concern was that patients with other health concerns were not being seen. In both samples, GPs expressed feelings of being overlooked by the government. Primary care needs tailored guidance from as early as possible in a health crisis to support clinicians to manage the competing demands of responding to emergency situations, maintain usual care and their own wellbeing.

How do Healthcare Workers 'Do' Guidelines? Exploring How Policy Decisions Impacted UK Healthcare Workers During the First Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We describe how COVID-19-related policy decisions and guidelines impacted healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK's first COVID-19 pandemic phase. Guidelines in healthcare aim to streamline processes, improve quality and manage risk. However, we argue that during this time the guidelines we studied often fell short of these goals in practice. We analysed 74 remote interviews with 14 UK HCWs over 6 months (February-August 2020). Reframing guidelines through Mol's lens of 'enactment', we reveal embodied, relational and material impacts that some guidelines had for HCWs. Beyond guideline 'adherence', we show that enacting guidelines is an ongoing, complex process of negotiating and balancing multilevel tensions. Overall, guidelines: (1) were inconsistently communicated; (2) did not sufficiently accommodate contextual considerations; and (3) were at times in tension with HCWs' values. Healthcare policymakers should produce more agile, acceptable guidelines that frontline HCWs can enact in ways which make sense and are effective in their contexts.

Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Delayed (or "backup") antibiotic prescription, where the patient is given a prescription but advised to delay initiating antibiotics, has been shown to be effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care. However, this strategy is not widely used in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to identify factors influencing preferences among the UK public for delayed prescription, and understand their relative importance, to help increase appropriate use of this prescribing option. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an online choice experiment in 2 UK general population samples: adults and parents of children under 18 years. Respondents were presented with 12 scenarios in which they, or their child, might need antibiotics for a respiratory tract infection (RTI) and asked to choose either an immediate or a delayed prescription. Scenarios were described by 7 attributes. Data were collected between November 2018 and February 2019. Respondent preferences were modelled using mixed-effects logistic regression. The survey was completed by 802 adults and 801 parents (75% of those who opened the survey). The samples reflected the UK population in age, sex, ethnicity, and country of residence. The most important determinant of respondent choice was symptom severity, especially for cough-related symptoms. In the adult sample, the probability of choosing delayed prescription was 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.56, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough and runny nose compared to 0.30 (0.28 to 0.33, p < 0.001) for a chesty cough with fever, 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for sore throat with swollen glands, and 0.37 (0.34 to 0.39, p < 0.001) for sore throat, swollen glands, and fever. Respondents were less likely to choose delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (odds ratio (OR) 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96, p < 0.001)). Probabilities of choosing delayed prescription were similar for parents considering treatment for a child (44% of choices versus 42% for adults, p = 0.04). However, parents differed from the adult sample in showing a more marked reduction in choice of the delayed prescription with increasing duration of illness (OR 0.83 (0.80 to 0.87) versus 0.94 (0.92 to 0.96) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001) and a smaller effect of disruption of usual activities (OR 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) versus 0.93 (0.92 to 0.94) for adults, p for heterogeneity p < 0.001). Females were more likely to choose a delayed prescription than males for minor symptoms, particularly minor cough (probability 0.62 (0.58 to 0.66, p < 0.001) for females and 0.45 (0.41 to 0.48, p < 0.001) for males). Older people, those with a good understanding of antibiotics, and those who had not used antibiotics recently showed similar patterns of preferences. Study limitations include its hypothetical nature, which may not reflect real-life behaviour; the absence of a "no prescription" option; and the possibility that study respondents may not represent the views of population groups who are typically underrepresented in online surveys. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that delayed prescription appears to be an acceptable approach to reducing antibiotic consumption. Certain groups appear to be more amenable to delayed prescription, suggesting particular opportunities for increased use of this strategy. Prescribing choices for sore throat may need additional explanation to ensure patient acceptance, and parents in particular may benefit from reassurance about the usual duration of these illnesses.

Perspectives on COVID-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and NHS health care workers in England.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices; and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. METHODS: A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). RESULTS: Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

Implementing interventions to reduce antibiotic use: a qualitative study in high-prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Trials have shown that delayed antibiotic prescriptions (DPs) and point-of-care C-Reactive Protein testing (POC-CRPT) are effective in reducing antibiotic use in general practice, but these were not typically implemented in high-prescribing practices. We aimed to explore views of professionals from high-prescribing practices about uptake and implementation of DPs and POC-CRPT to reduce antibiotic use. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study in English general practices. The highest antibiotic prescribing practices in the West Midlands were invited to participate. Clinical and non-clinical professionals attended focus groups co-facilitated by two researchers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine practices (50 professionals) participated. Four main themes were identified. Compatibility of strategies with clinical roles and experience - participants viewed the strategies as having limited value as 'clinical tools', perceiving them as useful only in 'rare' instances of clinical uncertainty and/or for those less experienced. Strategies as 'social tools' - participants perceived the strategies as helpful for negotiating treatment decisions and educating patients, particularly those expecting antibiotics. Ambiguities - participants perceived ambiguities around when they should be used, and about their impact on antibiotic use. Influence of context - various other situational and practical issues were raised with implementing the strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-prescribing practices do not view DPs and POC-CRPT as sufficiently useful 'clinical tools' in a way which corresponds to the current policy approach advocating their use to reduce clinical uncertainty and improve antimicrobial stewardship. Instead, policy attention should focus on how these strategies may instead be used as 'social tools' to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. Attention should also focus on the many ambiguities (concerns and questions) about, and contextual barriers to, using these strategies that need addressing to support wider and more consistent implementation.

Management of penicillin allergy in primary care: a qualitative study with patients and primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Six percent of patients are allergic to penicillin according to their medical records. While this designation protects a small number of truly allergic patients from serious reactions, those who are incorrectly labelled may be denied access to recommended first line treatment for many infections. Removal of incorrect penicillin allergy may have positive health consequences for the individual and the general population. We aimed to explore primary care physicians' (PCPs) and patients' views and understanding of penicillin allergy with a focus on clinical management of infections in the face of a penicillin allergy record. METHODS: We conducted an interview study with 31 patients with a penicillin allergy record, and 19 PCPs in the North of England. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients made sense of their allergy status by considering the timing and severity of symptoms. Diagnosis of penicillin allergy was reported to be 'imperfect' with PCPs relying on patient reports and incomplete medical records. PCPs and patients often suspected that an allergy record was incorrect, but PCPs were reluctant to change records. PCPs had limited knowledge of allergy services. PCPs often prescribed alternative antibiotics which were easy to identify. Both patients and PCPs differed in the extent to which they were aware of the negative consequences of incorrect penicillin allergy records, their relevance and importance to their lives, and management of penicillin allergy. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs and patients appear insufficiently aware of potential harms associated with incorrect penicillin allergy records. Some of the problems experienced by PCPs could be reduced by ensuring the details of newly diagnosed reactions to antibiotics are clearly documented. In order for PCPs to overturn more incorrect penicillin records through appropriate use of allergy services, more information and training about these services will be needed.

Reducing expectations for antibiotics in primary care: a randomised experiment to test the response to fear-based messages about antimicrobial resistance.

BACKGROUND: To reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, public health campaigns often provide fear-based information about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Meta-analyses have found that fear-based campaigns in other contexts are likely to be ineffective unless respondents feel confident they can carry out the recommended behaviour ('self-efficacy'). This study aimed to test the likely impact of fear-based messages, with and without empowering self-efficacy elements, on patient consultations/antibiotic requests for influenza-like illnesses, using a randomised design. METHODS: We hypothesised that fear-based messages containing empowering information about self-management without antibiotics would be more effective than fear alone, particularly in a pre-specified subgroup with low AMR awareness. Four thousand respondents from an online panel, representative of UK adults, were randomised to receive three different messages about antibiotic use and AMR, designed to induce fear about AMR to varying degrees. Two messages (one 'strong-fear', one 'mild-fear') also contained empowering information regarding influenza-like symptoms being easily self-managed without antibiotics. The main outcome measures were self-reported effect of information on likelihood of visiting a doctor and requesting antibiotics, for influenza-like illness, analysed separately according to whether or not the AMR information was 'very/somewhat new' to respondents, pre-specified based on a previous (non-randomised) survey. RESULTS: The 'fear-only' message was 'very/somewhat new' to 285/1000 (28.5%) respondents, 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' to 336/1500 (22.4%), and 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' to 388/1500 (25.9%) (p = 0.002). Of those for whom the respective information was 'very/somewhat new', only those given the 'strong-fear-plus-empowerment' message said they would be less likely to request antibiotics if they visited a doctor for an influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001; 182/388 (46.9%) 'much less likely'/'less likely', versus 116/336 (34.5%) with 'mild-fear-plus-empowerment' versus 85/285 (29.8%) with 'fear-alone'). Those for whom the respective information was not 'very/somewhat new' said they would be less likely to request antibiotics for influenza-like illness (p < 0.0001) across all messages (interaction p < 0.0001 versus 'very/somewhat new' subgroup). The three messages had analogous self-reported effects on likelihood of visiting a doctor and in subgroups defined by believing antibiotics would 'definitely/probably' help an influenza-like illness. Results were reproduced in an independent randomised survey (additional 4000 adults). CONCLUSIONS: Fear could be effective in public campaigns to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, but should be combined with messages empowering patients to self-manage symptoms effectively without antibiotics.

How did a Quality Premium financial incentive influence antibiotic prescribing in primary care? Views of Clinical Commissioning Group and general practice professionals.

BACKGROUND: The Quality Premium (QP) was introduced for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England to optimize antibiotic prescribing, but it remains unclear how it was implemented. OBJECTIVES: To understand responses to the QP and how it was perceived to influence antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 22 CCG and 19 general practice professionals. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The findings were organized into four categories. (i) Communication: this was perceived as unstructured and infrequent, and CCG professionals were unsure whether they received QP funding. (ii) Implementation: this was influenced by available local resources and competing priorities, with multifaceted and tailored strategies seen as most helpful for engaging general practices. Many antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies were implemented independently from the QP, motivated by quality improvement. (iii) Mechanisms: the QP raised the priority of AMS nationally and locally, and provided prescribing targets to aim for and benchmark against, but money was not seen as reinvested into AMS. (iv) Impact and sustainability: the QP was perceived as successful, but targets were considered challenging for a minority of CCGs and practices due to contextual factors (e.g. deprivation, understaffing). CCG professionals were concerned with potential discontinuation of the QP and prescribing rates levelling off. CONCLUSIONS: CCG and practice professionals expressed positive views of the QP and associated prescribing targets and feedback. The QP helped influence change mainly by raising the priority of AMS and defining change targets rather than providing additional funding. To maximize impact, behavioural mechanisms of financial incentives should be considered pre-implementation.

Parents' perceptions of antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance (PAUSE): a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: There remains public misconception about antibiotic use and resistance. Preschool children are at particular risk of receiving unnecessary antibiotics because they commonly present in primary care and many childhood infections are self-limiting. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to explore parents' perceptions and understanding of antibiotic use and resistance in the context of their young child with an acute respiratory tract infection (RTI) and to explore strategies parents would find acceptable to minimize antibiotic resistance for their families. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 parents of preschool children who recently had an acute RTI across greater Oxfordshire, UK (2016-17 winter). We explored their beliefs about antibiotics, understanding of antibiotic resistance and views on current public antibiotic awareness campaigns at the time. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Parents had a sense of optimism and considered their families to be at low risk of antibiotic resistance because their families were 'low users' of antibiotics. Very few parents considered antibiotic resistance as a possible harm of antibiotics. Parents thought they were acting morally responsibly by following campaign messages. They wanted future campaigns to have a relevant, accessible message for families about the impact of antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Future communication about the potential impact of unnecessary antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance needs to focus on outcomes that parents of young children can relate to (e.g. infection recurrence) and in a format that parents will engage with (e.g. face-to-face dissemination at playgroups and parent/child community events) to make a more informed decision about the risks and benefits of antibiotics for their child.

Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections 12 Months After Communication and CRP Training: A Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: C-reactive-protein (CRP) is useful for diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infections (RTIs). A large international trial documented that Internet-based training in CRP point-of-care testing, in enhanced communication skills, or both reduced antibiotic prescribing at 3 months, with risk ratios (RRs) of 0.68, 0.53, 0.38, respectively. We report the longer-term impact in this trial. METHODS: A total of 246 general practices in 6 countries were cluster-randomized to usual care, Internet-based training on CRP point-of-care testing, Internet-based training on enhanced communication skills and interactive booklet, or both interventions combined. The main outcome was antibiotic prescribing for RTIs after 12 months. RESULTS: Of 228 practices providing 3-month data, 74% provided 12-month data, with no demonstrable attrition bias. Between 3 months and 12 months, prescribing for RTIs decreased with usual care (from 58% to 51%), but increased with CRP training (from 35% to 43%) and with both interventions combined (from 32% to 45%); at 12 months, the adjusted RRs compared with usual care were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.00) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.49-0.93), respectively. Between 3 months and 12 months, the reduction in prescribing with communication training was maintained (41% and 40%, with an RR at 12 months of 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-0.94]). Although materials were provided for free, clinicians seldom used booklets and rarely used CRP point-of-care testing. Communication training, but not CRP training, remained efficacious for reducing prescribing for lower RTIs (RR = 0.7195% CI, 0.45-0.99, and RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06, respectively), whereas both remained efficacious for reducing prescribing for upper RTIs (RR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.94, and RR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based training in enhanced communication skills remains effective in the longer term for reducing antibiotic prescribing. The early improvement seen with CRP training wanes, and this training becomes ineffective for lower RTIs, the only current indication for using CRP testing.

Reducing demand for antibiotic prescriptions: evidence from an online survey of the general public on the interaction between preferences, beliefs and information, United Kingdom, 2015.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a major public health threat, is strongly associated with human antibiotic consumption. Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) account for substantial inappropriate antibiotic use; patient understanding and expectations probably play an important role. AIM: This study aimed to investigate what drives patient expectations of antibiotics for ILI and particularly whether AMR awareness, risk preferences (attitudes to taking risks with health) or time preferences (the extent to which people prioritise good health today over good health in the future) play a role. METHODS: In 2015, a representative online panel survey of 2,064 adults in the United Kingdom was asked about antibiotic use and effectiveness for ILI. Explanatory variables in multivariable regression included AMR awareness, risk and time preferences and covariates. RESULTS: The tendency not to prioritise immediate gain over later reward was independently strongly associated with greater awareness that antibiotics are inappropriate for ILI. Independently, believing antibiotics were effective for ILI and low AMR awareness significantly predicted reported antibiotic use. However, 272 (39%) of those with low AMR awareness said that the AMR information we provided would lead them to ask a doctor for antibiotics more often, significantly more than would do so less often, and in contrast to those with high AMR awareness (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Information campaigns to reduce AMR may risk a paradoxical consequence of actually increasing public demand for antibiotics. Public antibiotic stewardship campaigns should be tested on a small scale before wider adoption.

Patients' Experiences After CKD Diagnosis: A Meta-ethnographic Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is often asymptomatic at first diagnosis, and awareness of CKD is low in the general population. Thus, individuals who are unexpectedly identified as having CKD may struggle to adjust to living with this diagnosis. This study aims to synthesize qualitative research exploring patients' views and experiences of a CKD diagnosis and how they adjust to it. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-ethnography. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients with CKD stages 1 to 5. SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from the earliest date available to November 2015. Qualitative studies were selected that explored patients' views and experiences of a CKD diagnosis and their adjustment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Meta-ethnography was adopted to synthesize the findings. RESULTS: 10 studies involving 596 patients with CKD from secondary-care settings were included. 7 key themes were identified: a challenging diagnosis, diverse beliefs about causation, anticipated concerns about progression, delaying disease progression, unmet informational needs, psychosocial impact of CKD, and adjustment to life with CKD. LIMITATIONS: Limited to views and experiences of participants in included studies, which were mostly conducted in high-income countries. Studies not written in English were excluded. Transferability of findings to other populations may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights variation in patients' understanding of CKD, an overall lack of information on the trajectory of CKD, and a need for psychosocial support, especially in later stages, to help patients adjust to living with CKD. Future research that acknowledges CKD as a condition with diverse complicating morbidities and explores how patients' information and psychosocial needs vary according to severity and comorbid conditions would be beneficial. This will support delivery of easily understandable, timely, and targeted information about CKD, as well as practical advice about recommended lifestyle changes.

Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.We included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.Moderate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.Compared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).The quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).None of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.We could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.Most of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.

Treatment of End-stage Kidney Failure without Renal Replacement Therapy.

For the majority of patients with end-stage kidney failure (ESKF) replacement of excretory renal function by dialysis or transplantation (RRT) can extend life and alleviate symptoms. Historically, the availability of RRT has been insufficient and this remains the case for much of the world. However, RRT is now widely available in healthcare systems of higher income countries. Increasing numbers of elderly patients are developing ESKF. RRT in this population is largely by dialysis, comorbidity is high and life expectancy short. Evidence of effectiveness coupled with the burden of treatment among these individuals has raised concerns that health services in high-income countries may have moved from an era of unmet need into one of potential over-treatment. Alongside the requirement to make treatment more patient-centered, this has driven the development of comprehensive conservative care as an alternative approach for older comorbid individuals with ESKF, with the potential for acceptable symptom control and reduced treatment burden. This paper provides a largely UK-perspective on treating ESKF without RRT. Emphasis is on the need for high-quality evidence to inform treatment decisions. Complexities of defining, delivering and improving treatment of ESKF without dialysis care are explored. Quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarized and the relationship with palliative and terminal care examined. A framework is suggested for classifying management of ESKF and recommendations made to improve delivery of nondialysis care in the future. For patients with a poor prognosis, such treatment may not result in significantly different survival or quality of life when compared with dialysis. There is a key need to generate the best possible evidence of person-centered health outcomes associated with the various treatment options for ESKF and to present this to patients in a balanced, personalized way that allows them to make the treatment decision most appropriate for them.

Understanding by older patients of dialysis and conservative management for chronic kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 may be offered a choice between dialysis and conservative management. Few studies have explored patients' reasons for choosing conservative management and none have compared the views of those who have chosen different treatments across renal units. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study with semistructured interviews. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Patients 75 years or older recruited from 9 renal units. Units were chosen to reflect variation in the scale of delivery of conservative management. METHODOLOGY: Semistructured interviews audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 42 interviews were completed, 4 to 6 per renal unit. Patients were sampled from those receiving dialysis, those preparing for dialysis, and those choosing conservative management. 14 patients in each group were interviewed. Patients who had chosen different treatments held varying beliefs about what dialysis could offer. The information that patients reported receiving from clinical staff differed between units. Patients from units with a more established conservative management pathway were more aware of conservative management, less often believed that dialysis would guarantee longevity, and more often had discussed the future with staff. Some patients receiving conservative management reported that they would have dialysis if they became unwell in the future, indicating the conditional nature of their decision. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment of older adults with frailty and comorbid conditions was difficult and therefore transferability of findings to this population is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with chronic kidney disease stage 5 who have chosen different treatment options have contrasting beliefs about the likely outcomes of dialysis for those who are influenced by information provided by renal units. Supporting renal staff in discussing conservative management as a valid alternative to dialysis for a subset of patients will aid informed decision making. There is a need for better evidence about conservative management to support shared decision making for older people with chronic kidney failure.

Clinicians' views and experiences of interventions to enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows a high rate of unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in Europe and the United States. Given the costs of widespread use and associated antibiotic resistance, reducing inappropriate use is a public health priority. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore clinicians' experiences of training in communication skills and use of a patient booklet and/or a C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care test to reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs). DESIGN: We used a qualitative research approach, interviewing clinicians who participated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing two contrasting interventions. PARTICIPANTS: General practice clinicians in Belgium, England, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Wales participated in the study. APPROACH: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated into English where necessary, and analysed using thematic and framework analysis. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians from all countries attributed benefits for themselves and their patients to using both interventions. Clinicians reported that the communication skills training and use of the patient booklet gave them greater confidence in addressing patient expectations for an antibiotic by providing answers to common questions and supporting the clinician's own explanations. Clinicians felt the booklet could be used for a variety of patients and for different types of infections. The CRP test was viewed as a tool to decrease diagnostic uncertainty, to support non-prescription decisions, and to reassure patients, but was only necessary when clinicians were uncertain about the need for antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Providing clinicians with training and support tools for use in practice was received positively and was valued by clinicians across countries. Interventions seemed to have influenced behaviour by increasing clinician knowledge about illness severity and prescribing, increasing confidence in making non-prescribing decisions when antibiotics were unnecessary, and enabling clinicians to anticipate positive outcomes when making such decisions. Addressing such determinants of behaviour change enabled interventions to be relevant for clinicians working across different contexts.

Effects of internet-based training on antibiotic prescribing rates for acute respiratory-tract infections: a multinational, cluster, randomised, factorial, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: High-volume prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Education of physicians and patients can lower prescribing levels, but it frequently relies on highly trained staff. We assessed whether internet-based training methods could alter prescribing practices in multiple health-care systems. METHODS: After a baseline audit in October to December, 2010, primary-care practices in six European countries were cluster randomised to usual care, training in the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) test at point of care, in enhanced communication skills, or in both CRP and enhanced communication. Patients were recruited from February to May, 2011. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99871214. RESULTS: The baseline audit, done in 259 practices, provided data for 6771 patients with lower-respiratory-tract infections (3742 [55·3%]) and upper-respiratory-tract infections (1416 [20·9%]), of whom 5355 (79·1%) were prescribed antibiotics. After randomisation, 246 practices were included and 4264 patients were recruited. The antibiotic prescribing rate was lower with CRP training than without (33% vs 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·42-0·69) and with enhanced-communication training than without (36% vs 45%, 0·69, 0·54-0·87). The combined intervention was associated with the greatest reduction in prescribing rate (CRP risk ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·36-0·74, p<0·0001; enhanced communication 0·68, 0·50-0·89, p=0·003; combined 0·38, 0·25-0·55, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Internet training achieved important reductions in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory-tract infections across language and cultural boundaries. FUNDING: European Commission Framework Programme 6, National Institute for Health Research, Research Foundation Flanders.

Patient attitudes towards kidney transplant listing: qualitative findings from the ATTOM study.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in time to listing and rates of listing for transplantation between renal units in the UK. While research has mainly focused on healthcare organization, little is known about patient perspectives of entry onto the transplant waiting list. This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' views and experiences of kidney transplant listing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients aged under 75, who were on dialysis and on the transplant waiting list, not on the waiting list, undergoing assessment for listing or who had received a transplant. Patients were recruited from a purposive sample of nine UK renal units, which included transplanting and non-transplanting units and units with high and low wait-listing patterns. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (5-7 per renal unit) were interviewed. Patients reported that they had received little information about the listing process. Some patients did not know if they were listed or had found they were not listed when they had thought they were on the list. Others expressed distress when they felt they had been excluded from potential listing based on age and/or comorbidity and felt the process was unfair. Many patients were not aware of pre-emptive transplantation and believed they had to be on dialysis before being able to be listed. There was some indication that pre-emptive transplantation was discussed more often in transplant than non-transplant units. Lastly, some patients were reluctant to consider family members as potential donors as they reported they would feel 'guilty' if the donor suffered subsequent negative effects. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need to review current practice to further understand individual and organizational reasons for the renal unit variation identified in patient understanding of transplant listing. The communication of information warrants attention to ensure patients are fully informed about the listing process and opportunity for pre-emptive transplantation in a way that is meaningful and understandable to them.