Eliciting the barriers and enablers towards anaesthetists giving penicillin-based antibiotic prophylaxis to low-risk patients who have had their penicillin allergy label removed as part of a preoperative delabelling process.

Background: Some penicillin allergy labels can be removed by non-allergy specialists by direct oral challenge, but there is reluctance amongst anaesthetists to give penicillin to these patients. We aimed to assess anaesthetist beliefs about giving penicillin to patients delabelled by direct oral challenge. Methods: A survey, developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework, was circulated to anaesthetists within a regional research network in England. Domains were rated using 5-point Likert scales. Overall and group medians were used to dichotomize domains rated by group into 'relatively important/unimportant' and 'relative enabler/barrier'. Results: We received 257 responses from six hospitals (response rate 49.7%). Seven domains were rated as important for all stakeholder groups and hospitals: Knowledge, Skills, Belief in Capabilities, Belief in Consequences, Memory/Attention/Decisions, Environmental Context and Resources, and Emotions. Social and Professional Role was also important to all respondents except those in one hospital. Intentions and Optimism were rated as important for some groups/hospitals and unimportant for others. All four other domains were rated as unimportant for all groups/hospitals. All domains rated as important were enablers for all groups/hospitals, with the exception of Memory/Attention/Decisions and Emotions, which were rated as discordant barriers/enablers between groups. This means they were acting as a barrier for some staff groups/hospitals and an enabler for others. Barrier domains (Reinforcement, Goals, Social Influences, Behavioural Regulation) were all rated unimportant. Conclusions: Behavioural influences on giving penicillin prophylaxis to a delabelled patient are complex and nuanced. These findings could inform targeted interventions, both across and within hospitals and staff groups.

Patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar health region: a qualitative study of physician voices from the Northwest Territories, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite climate change being described as a code red for humanity, health systems have been particularly slow in both climate mitigation and adaptation responses. The effects of climate change on health and health systems will not be felt equally, with underserved and marginalised communities disproportionately impacted. The circumpolar region is warming at 3-4 times the global rate, amplifying already existing socioeconomic barriers and health inequities, with particular amplified effects for the substantial Indigenous population in the area. OBJECTIVES AND SETTING: We therefore sought to explore perspectives of physicians around patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing in a circumpolar region in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, known to be one of the ground zero levels for climate change. METHODS: Thirteen semi-structured physician interviews were carried out in the NWT region between May 2022 and March 2023 using purposive sampling. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reflexive thematic analysis was carried out to identify key themes. RESULTS: There were three main themes identified including (1) current healthcare system does not support planetary health, (2) supporting patient-planetary health is currently difficult for clinicians and (3) considering change in the NWT to support patient-planetary health. Participants noted key opportunities to move planetary health forward, with the NWT having the potential to be an innovative model for planetary health-informed change for other health systems. CONCLUSION: The NWT health system has unique features due to its rural and remote nature and smaller population base. Despite this, our study identified some key opportunities for advancing P-PH co-benefit efforts. The identified opportunities may be considered in future intervention, organisational change and policy-making efforts with potential relevance in other settings.

Non-allergist healthcare workers views on delivering a penicillin allergy de-labelling inpatient pathway: identifying the barriers and enablers.

Background: Non-allergist delivered PADL is supported by UK and World Health Organization guidelines but is not yet routine in UK hospitals. Understanding the views of healthcare workers (HCWs) on managing patients with penA records and exploring perspectives on delivering a PADL inpatient pathway are required to inform the development of non-allergist delivered PADL pathways. Objective: To explore the perspectives of non-allergist HCWs working in medical specialties on managing patients with penA records, and to explore the enablers and barriers to embedding PADL as a standard of care for inpatients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medicines optimization pharmacy technicians working in a district general hospital in the UK. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The PADL pathway was considered a shared responsibility of the multidisciplinary team, which needed to be structured and supported by a framework. PADL aligns with HCW roles but time to deliver PADL was a barrier. Training for HCWs on the benefits of PADL and delivering PADL for those patients where a penicillin might be beneficial during the current episode of care would both motivate HCWs to deliver PADL. Discussion and conclusion: The PADL pathway was acceptable to HCWs and aligned with their roles and current healthcare processes but their capacity to deliver PADL in a time pressured environment was a significant barrier.

Experiences of an inpatient penicillin allergy de-labelling pathway: capturing the patient voice.

Background: Non-allergist-delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL) is supported by UK and other national guidelines but is not yet routine practice in UK hospitals. Those who have undergone PADL report high rates of acceptance, but it is unknown why some continue to avoid penicillin, and why some decline testing. Objectives: To explore the experiences of patients recently approached for penicillin allergy (penA) assessment and de-label by non-allergists in a UK hospital to determine the barriers and enablers to patient acceptance of PADL. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who were penA assessed and de-labelled during an inpatient stay between November 2022 and January 2023. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Nineteen patients were interviewed. Patients were largely unaware of the negative impact of penA on their healthcare. Patients had differing views on challenging their penA status while they were acutely unwell, some agreeing that it is the right time to test and others not. Patients declined testing because they felt they were at higher potential risk because they were older or had multiple comorbidities. Some patients who declined testing felt they would have been persuaded if they had received a better explanation of the risks and benefits of PADL. Conclusions: Patients who were successfully de-labelled were positive about the experience. Those who declined testing did so for a variety of reasons including frailty/comorbidities or a fear of testing whilst unwell. Patients highlighted the importance of good communication about the personalized risks and benefits of testing.

Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Stakeholders' views and experiences on implementing new diagnostics in primary care to support management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study.

Background: The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care for respiratory tract infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for the management of community-acquired acute respiratory tract infections (CA-ARTI) have been developed to help optimize antibiotic prescribing. While some countries in Europe have adopted these tests in primary care settings, most have not. Stakeholders, such as policy-makers, regulators, the diagnostic industry, and scientific associations, have roles in the implementation of new diagnostics in primary care. The aim of this study is to explore these stakeholders' views and experiences, and identify areas of unmet need relating to POCT implementation. Methods: Stakeholders were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing. Between March 2021 and May 2022, semi-structured interviews were conducted online with stakeholders in Belgium, the UK and from European Union (EU) -level organizations. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-six stakeholders participated: eleven from EU-level organizations, seven from Belgium, and eight from the UK. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders felt a balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches were an optimal strategy to the implementation of POCTs. Stakeholders stressed the need to engage with clinicians to act as champions for tests to help raise awareness and generate new evidence on how tests are used. While acknowledging the potential of POCTs for improving patient outcomes and impacting antibiotic prescribing behavior, some raised concerns on how tests would be used in practice and wished to see national data on effectiveness. COVID-19 catalyzed the use of tests, but stakeholders were pessimistic that processes for approving diagnostics during the pandemic would be replicated in the future. Conclusion: Stakeholders provided recommendations for research and practice. Robust reimbursement policies could alleviate financial burden from clinicians and patients, encouraging practices to adopt POCTs. Industry is likely to benefit from engaging as early on as possible with other stakeholders. Due to uncertainty among stakeholders on the impact of POCTs on antibiotic prescribing, further evidence is needed to understand how practices adopt POCTs and the implications for stewardship. Monitoring how POCTs are used can inform future guidelines on successful diagnostic implementation.

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.

Management of asthma in primary care in the changing context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative longitudinal study with patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected asthma monitoring in primary care, but exploration of patients' views and their experiences of managing their asthma and seeking help from primary care during the pandemic has been limited. AIM: To investigate patients' experiences of asthma management in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews with patients from four GP practices across diverse regions including Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, and North West Coast. METHOD: Interviews were undertaken with patients with asthma, who were usually managed in primary care. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive temporal thematic analysis and a trajectory approach. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews were conducted with 18 patients over an 8-month period that covered contrasting stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients felt less vulnerable as the pandemic subsided, but the process of making sense of risk was dynamic and influenced by multiple factors. Patients relied on self-management strategies, but felt that routine asthma reviews should still have been conducted during the pandemic and highlighted that they had limited opportunities to discuss their asthma with health professionals. Patients with well-controlled symptoms felt that remote reviews were largely satisfactory, but still thought face-to-face reviews were necessary for certain aspects, such as physical examination and patient-led discussions of sensitive or broader issues associated with asthma, including mental health. CONCLUSION: The dynamic nature of patients' perception of risk throughout the pandemic highlighted the need for greater clarity regarding personal risk. Having an opportunity to discuss their asthma is important to patients, even when access to face-to-face consultations in primary care is more restricted than usual.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial stewardship support for general practices in England: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In England, clinical commissioning group (CCG; now replaced by Integrated Care Systems [ICSs]) and primary care network (PCN) professionals support primary care prescribers to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AIM: To explore views and experiences of CCG and PCN staff in supporting AMS, and the impact of COVID-19 on this support. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interview study in primary care in England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with staff from CCG and PCNs responsible for AMS were conducted at two timepoints via telephone. These were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 participants (nine CCG, five PCN) in December 2020-January 2021 and February-May 2021. The study found that AMS support was (1) deprioritised in order to keep general practice operational and deliver COVID-19 vaccines; (2) disrupted as social distancing made it harder to build relationships, conduct routine AMS activities, and challenge prescribing decisions; and (3) adapted, with opportunities identified for greater use of technology and changing patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care. It was also found that resources to support AMS were valued if they were both novel, to counter AMS 'fatigue', and sufficiently familiar to fit with existing and/or future AMS. CONCLUSION: AMS needs to be reprioritised in general practice in the post-pandemic era and within the new ICSs in England. This should include interventions and strategies that combine novel elements with already familiar strategies to refresh prescribers' motivation and opportunities for AMS. Behaviour change interventions should be aimed at improving the culture and processes for how PCN pharmacists voice concerns about AMS to prescribers in general practice and take advantage of the changed patient and public perceptions of viruses and self-care.

Physicians' views of patient-planetary health co-benefit prescribing: a mixed methods systematic review.

Health professionals are increasingly called to become partners in planetary health. Using patient-planetary health (P-PH) co-benefit prescribing framing, we did a mixed methods systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to adopting P-PH co-benefit prescribing by physicians and mapped these onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We searched electronic databases from inception until October, 2022, and did a content analysis of the included articles (n=12). Relevant categories were matched to items in the COM-B model and TDF. Nine barriers and eight facilitators were identified. Barriers included an absence of, or little, knowledge of how to change practice and time to implement change; facilitators included having policy statements and guidelines from respected associations. More diverse study designs that include health professionals, patients, and health-care system stakeholders are needed to ensure a more holistic understanding of the individual, system, and policy levers involved in implementing clinical work informed by planetary health.

The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Trials have identified antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England. The authors co-developed an implementation intervention to improve use of three AMS strategies: enhanced communication strategies, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein tests (POC-CRPTs). AIM: To investigate the use of the intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via a website with practices required to identify an 'antibiotic champion'. METHOD: Routinely collected prescribing data were compared between the intervention and the control practices. Intervention use was assessed through monitoring. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals to capture experiences of using the intervention. RESULTS: There was no evidence that the intervention affected prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on individual champions' preconceptions of strategies and the opportunity to conduct implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one AMS strategy, mostly POC-CRPTs; one practice chose all three. POC-CRPTs was used more when allocated to one person. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need detailed information on exactly how to adopt AMS strategies. Remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.

Re-examining advice to complete antibiotic courses: a qualitative study with clinicians and patients.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment duration may be longer than sometimes needed. Stopping antibiotics early, rather than completing pre-set antibiotic courses, may help reduce unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AIM: To identify clinicians' and patients' views on stopping antibiotics when better (SAWB) for urinary tract infections (UTIs), and to explore comparisons with other acute infections. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative study with general practice clinicians and patients in England. METHOD: Primary care clinicians and patients who had recent UTI experience were recruited in England. Remote one-to-one interviews with clinicians and patients, and one focus group with patients, were conducted. Data were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Eleven clinicians (seven GPs) and 19 patients (14 with experience of recurrent and/or chronic UTIs) were included. All participants considered SAWB unfamiliar and contradictory to well-known advice to complete antibiotic courses, but were interested in the evidence for risks and benefits of SAWB. Clinicians were amenable if evidence and guidelines supported it, whereas patients were more averse because of concerns about the risk of UTI recurrence and/or complications and AMR. Participants viewed SAWB as potentially more appropriate for longer antibiotic courses and other infections (with longer courses and lower risk of recurrence and/or complications). Participants stressed the need for unambiguous advice and SAWB as part of shared decision making and personalised advice. CONCLUSION: Patients were less accepting of SAWB, whereas clinicians were more amenable to it. Patients and clinicians require good evidence that this novel approach to self-determining antibiotic duration is safe and beneficial. If evidence based, SAWB should be offered with an explanation of why the advice differs from the 'complete the course' instruction, and a clear indication of when exactly to stop antibiotics should be given.

The effectiveness of interventions that support penicillin allergy assessment and delabeling of adult and pediatric patients by nonallergy specialists: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Penicillin allergy records are often incorrect and may result in harm. We aimed to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of nonallergist health care worker delivery of penicillin allergy delabeling. METHODS: We searched EMBASE/MEDLINE/CINAHL (Ovid), PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 21, 2022 and unpublished studies and gray literature. The proportion of patients allergic to penicillin delabeled and harmed was calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Overall, 5019 patients were delabeled. Using allergy history alone, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-21%) of 4350 assessed patients were delabeled without reported harm. Direct drug provocation testing resulted in delabeling in 27% (95% CI, 18-37%) of 4207 assessed patients. Of the 1373 patients tested, 98% were delabeled (95% CI, 97-99%), and nonserious harm was reported in 1% (95% CI, 0-2%). Using skin testing, followed by drug provocation testing, 41% (95% CI, 24-59%) of 2890 assessed patients were delabeled. Of the 1294 tested patients, 95.0% (95% CI, 90-99%) were delabeled, and the reported harm was low (0%; (95% CI 0-1%). CONCLUSION: Penicillin allergy delabeling by nonallergists is efficacious and safe. The proportion of assessed patients who can be delabeled increases with the complexity of testing method, but substantial numbers can be delabeled without skin testing.

Conducting rapid qualitative interview research during the COVID-19 pandemic-Reflections on methodological choices.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, setting up studies in time to gather relevant, real-world data enables researchers to capture current views and experiences, focus on practicalities on the ground, and deliver actionable results. Delivering high quality rapid studies in healthcare poses several challenges even in non-emergency situations. There is an expanding literature discussing benefits and challenges of conducting rapid research, yet there are relatively few examples related to methodological dilemmas and decisions that researchers may face when conducting rapid studies. In rapidly-changing emergency contexts, some of these challenges may be more easily overcome, while others may be unique to the emergency, magnified, or emerge in different ways. In this manuscript, we discuss our reflections and lessons learnt across the research process when conducting rapid qualitative interview studies in the context of a healthcare emergency, focusing on methodological issues. By this we mean the challenging considerations and pragmatic choices we made, and their downstream impacts, that shaped our studies. We draw on our extensive combined experience of delivering several projects during the COVID-19 pandemic in both single and multi-country settings, where we implemented rapid studies, or rapidly adapted an existing study. In the context of these studies, we discuss two main considerations, with a particular focus on the complexities, multiple facets, and trade-offs involved in: (i) team-based approaches to qualitative studies; and (ii) timely and rapid data collection, analysis and dissemination. We contribute a transparent discussion of these issues, describing them, what helped us to deal with them, and which issues have been difficult to overcome. We situate our discussion of arising issues in relation to existing literature, to offer broader recommendations while also identifying gaps in current understandings of how to deal with these methodological challenges. We thus identify key considerations, lessons, and possibilities for researchers implementing rapid studies in healthcare emergencies and beyond. We aim to promote transparency in reporting, assist other researchers in making informed choices, and consequently contribute to the development of the rapid qualitative research.

Enhancing opportunistic recruitment and retention in primary care trials: lessons learned from a qualitative study embedded in the Cranberry for Urinary Tract Infection (CUTI) feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Opportunistic recruitment in primary care is challenging due to the inherent unpredictability of incident conditions, and workload and time pressures. Many clinical trials do not recruit to target, leading to equivocal answers to research questions. Learning from the experiences of patients and recruiters to trials of incident conditions has the potential to improve recruitment and retention to future trials, thereby enhancing the quality and impact of research findings. The aim of this research was to learn from the trial experiences of UTI patients and recruiters to the Cranberry for UTI (CUTI) trial, to help plan an adequately powered trial of similar design. METHODS: One-to-one semi-structured interviews were embedded within the CUTI feasibility trial, an open-label, randomised feasibility trial of cranberry extract for symptoms of acute, uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) in primary care. Interviews were conducted with a sample of: CUTI trial participants; non-CUTI trial UTI patients; and, recruiters to the CUTI trial. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with UTI and eight recruiters (nurses and GPs) to the CUTI trial were interviewed. Three themes were developed around: reasons for participating in research; barriers to opportunistic recruitment; and, UTI patients' experiences of trial procedures. Recruiters found that targeted electronic prompts directed at healthcare practitioners based in clinics where patients with incident conditions were likely to present (e.g. minor illness clinic) were more effective than generic prompts (e.g. desk prompts) at filtering patients from their usual clinical pathway to research clinics. Using a script to explain the delayed antibiotic trial group to patients was found to be helpful, and may have served to boost recruitment. For UTI patients, using an electronic diary to rate their symptoms was considered an acceptable medium, and often preferable to using a paper diary or mobile phone application. CONCLUSIONS: The use of targeted prompts directed at clinicians, a script to explain trial groups that may be deemed less desirable, and an appropriate diary format for patient-reported outcomes, may help to improve trial recruitment and retention.

Qualitative study on perceptions of use of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) in asthma reviews.

Current methods to assess asthma and guide inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose titration mainly centre on patient-reported symptoms and lung function assessments. However, these methods correlate only weakly with airway inflammation making them unreliable predictors of future exacerbations and ICS requirement. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide (FeNO) is a simple non-invasive objective measure of airways inflammation used predominantly in specialist clinics. Previous qualitative studies have mainly focused on the acceptability of FeNO in secondary care and there is limited insight to support clinicians and patients using FeNO in primary care asthma reviews. This study aimed to explore adult patient with asthma and primary care health care professional (HCP) views on introducing FeNO as part of routine asthma reviews. Twenty-three health care professionals and 22 patients were interviewed over the phone or online. Both groups reported that current asthma reviews are often seen as tick-box exercises and that introducing the FeNO test would make reviews more tailored to the individual patient, rather than relying on subjective patient reports of asthma control. Adults with asthma also highlighted support more open communication and their understanding of asthma, as they desired to feel more engaged in decisions and conversations about their asthma. HCPs reported valuing patient education and empowerment over a paternalistic approach, when time and resources allow. They also recognised FeNO to provide an objective measure of inflammation that could support them in the education and empowerment of patients. FeNO was seen by both groups as a potentially valuable addition to current asthma reviews mainly led by nurses, both for increasing their understanding of current risk of exacerbation and also to provide more tailored and personalised asthma management to patients. Our findings highlighted the need for open and clear communication about how to interpret FeNO results.

The value, challenges and practical considerations of conducting qualitative research on antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.

In order to design appropriate antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes, it is crucial to understand challenges to tackling antibiotic resistance (AMR) specific to each healthcare setting. Antibiotic prescribing in primary care accounts for most prescriptions with a significant proportion considered clinically inappropriate. Qualitative research has a long history in social sciences, but its value and contribution are still contested in medical journals including in the AMR/AMS field. However, through its focus on understanding, meaning making and explaining, qualitative research can offer insights in how to improve AMS efforts in primary care. This paper provides an overview of unique considerations, contributions and challenges related to using qualitative research in AMS to help the AMS community new to qualitative research to utilize its potential most fully. First, we discuss specific considerations for AMS in relation to the stages of conducting a qualitative study, including identifying a research question and choosing a suitable methodology; sampling appropriate participants; planning a recruitment strategy; choosing a method of data collection; and conducting data analysis. These are illustrated with examples of qualitative AMS studies in primary care. Second, we highlight the importance of patient and public involvement throughout all stages of the project and ensuring quality in qualitative AMS research. Finally, drawing on these considerations, we make a further case for the value and contribution of qualitative methodologies in AMS/AMR research while outlining future directions for both AMS and qualitative research, including the need for studies with diverse actors; interdisciplinary collaborations; and complex decisions on methodologies and timelines.