Respiratory Tract Infections In Primary Care Research Articles

What gives rise to clinician gut feeling, its influence on management decisions and its prognostic value for children with RTI in primary care: a prospective cohort study

BackgroundThe objectives were to identify 1) the clinician and child characteristics associated with; 2) clinical management decisions following from, and; 3) the prognostic value of; a clinician’s ‘gut feeling something is wrong’ for children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (RTI).MethodsMulticentre prospective cohort study where 518 primary care clinicians across 244 general practices in England assessed 8394 children aged ≥3 months and < 16 years for acute cough and RTI. The main outcome measures were: Self-reported clinician ‘gut feeling’; clinician management decisions (antibiotic prescribing, referral for acute admission); and child’s prognosis (reconsultation with evidence of illness deterioration, hospital admission in the 30 days following recruitment).ResultsClinician years since qualification, parent reported symptoms (illness severity score ≥ 7/10, severe fever < 24 h, low energy, shortness of breath) and clinical examination findings (crackles/ crepitations on chest auscultation, recession, pallor, bronchial breathing, wheeze, temperature ≥ 37.8 °C, tachypnoea and inflamed pharynx) independently contributed towards a clinician ‘gut feeling that something was wrong’. ‘Gut feeling’ was independently associated with increased antibiotic prescribing and referral for secondary care assessment. After adjustment for other associated factors, gut feeling was not associated with reconsultations or hospital admissions.ConclusionsClinicians were more likely to report a gut feeling something is wrong, when they were more experienced or when children were more unwell. Gut feeling is independently and strongly associated with antibiotic prescribing and referral to secondary care, but not with two indicators of poor child health.

Review: In primary care, CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARI.

Source Citation Tonkin-Crine SK, Tan PS, van Hecke O, et al. Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an over...

What\u2019s the uptake? Pragmatic RCTs may be used to estimate uptake, and thereby population impact of interventions, but better reporting of trial recruitment processes is needed

BackgroundEffectiveness of interventions in pragmatic trials may not translate directly into population impact, because of limited uptake by clinicians and/or the public. Uptake of an intervention is influenced by a number of factors.MethodsWe propose a method for calculating population impact of clinical interventions that accounts for the intervention uptake. We suggest that population impact may be estimated by multiplying the two key components: (1) the effectiveness of the intervention in pragmatic trials (trial effect); and, (2) its uptake in clinical practice. We argue that participation rates in trials may be a valid proxy for uptake in clinical practice and, in combination with trial effectiveness estimates, be used to rank interventions by their likely population impact. We illustrate the method using the example of four interventions to decrease antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory infections in primary care: delayed prescribing, procalcitonin test, C-Reactive Protein, shared decision making.ResultsIn order to estimate uptake of interventions from trial data we need detailed reporting on the recruitment processes used for clinician participation in the trials. In the antibiotic prescribing example, between 75 and 91% of the population would still be prescribed or consume antibiotics because effective interventions were not taken up. Of the four interventions considered, we found that delayed prescribing would have the highest population impact and shared decision making the lowest.ConclusionEstimates of uptake and population impact of an intervention may be possible from pragmatic RCTs, provided the recruitment processes for these trials are adequately reported (which currently few of them are). Further validation of this method using empirical data on intervention uptake in the real world would support use of this method to decide on public funding of interventions.

Qualitative interview study of antibiotics and self-management strategies for respiratory infections in primary care

ObjectiveTo explore perceptions of illness, the decisions to consult and the acceptability of delayed antibiotic prescriptions and self-help treatments for respiratory tract infections (RTIs).DesignQualitative semistructured interview study.SettingUK primary care.Participants20 adult...

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

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

Parents' Expectations and Experiences of Antibiotics for Acute Respiratory Infections in Primary Care.

Primary care visits for children with acute respiratory infections frequently result in antibiotic prescriptions, although antibiotics have limited benefits for common acute respiratory infections and can cause harms, including antibiotic resistance. Parental demands are often blamed for antibiotic prescription. We aimed to explore parents' beliefs about antibiotic necessity, quantify their expectations of antibiotic benefit, and report experiences of other management options and exposure to and preferences for shared decision making. We conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews in an Australia-wide community sample of primary caregivers, hereafter referred to as parents, of children aged 1 to 12 years, using random digit dialing of household landline telephones. Of the 14,505 telephone numbers called, 10,340 were eligible numbers; 589 potentially eligible parents were reached, of whom 401 were interviewed. Most believed antibiotics provide benefits for common acute respiratory infections, especially for acute otitis media (92%), although not using them, particularly for acute cough and sore throat, was sometimes acceptable. Parents grossly overestimated the mean benefit of antibiotics on illness symptom duration by 5 to 10 times, and believed they reduce the likelihood of complications. The majority, 78%, recognized antibiotics may cause harm. Recalling the most recent relevant doctor visit, 44% of parents reported at least some discussion about why antibiotics might be used; shared decision making about antibiotic use was inconsistent, while 75% wanted more involvement in future decisions. Some parents have misperceptions about antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections, highlighting the need for improved communication during visits, including shared decision making to address overoptimistic expectations of antibiotics. Such communication should be one of several strategies that is used to reduce antibiotic use.

Electronically delivered, multicomponent intervention to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: a cluster randomised trial using electronic health records—REDUCE Trial study original protocol

IntroductionRespiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for about 60% of antibiotics prescribed in primary care. This study aims to test the effectiveness, in a cluster randomised controlled trial, of electronically delivered,...

P081: Adaptation of DECISION+, a training program in shared decision making on the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care, to the context of emergency department: a mixed methods study

Introduction: Antibiotic overuse for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) is a significant problem in Emergency Departments (EDs). DECISION+, a training program on shared decision making (SDM) and a decision aid for antibiotic use in ARIs, reduces patients’ use of antibiotics for ARIs in primary care, but has never been studied in the ED setting. The objectives of this study are to assess the intention of ED physicians to adopt SDM about antibiotic use in ARIs and to identify barriers and facilitators about adopting SDM and a decision aid for antibiotic use in ARIs. Methods: An adapted version of DECISION+ (1-hour seminar) was offered to physicians of two academic EDs (Quebec, Canada) in fall 2015. A validated questionnaire was administered to participants before and after the seminar. This questionnaire contains three items measuring the intention to adopt SDM using a 7-point Likert scale [ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely)]. We performed descriptive analyses for demographic characteristics and a paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare pre- and post-training intention to adopt SDM (α=.05). A debriefing session with the participants identified potential barriers and facilitators about implementing SDM and using a decision aid regarding antibiotic use for ARIs. Two researchers analysed the recorded audio material. Results: 41% (23/56) of eligible physicians received the intervention. 74 % of participants had already heard of SDM and 40% felt they already used SDM in their practice. The median intention to adopt SDM was 6 (IQR 5-6) before and 6 (IQR 5-6) after the seminar (P = .23). One participant did not answer the questionnaire after the seminar and his results were excluded from the comparative analysis. We identified 20 specific barriers to adopting SDM for deciding about antibiotics use for ARIs in the ED (e.g., lack of time) and 13 facilitators (e.g., public health campaign). Conclusion: ED physicians’ baseline intention to adopt SDM with patients for antibiotic use in ARIs is high. The adapted tutorial of DECISION+ did not change this intention. This could be explained by the social desirability of SDM. Further studies must be conducted to adapt DECISION+ to the ED setting and also to assess the impact of DECISION+ on the actual prescription and use of antibiotics for ARIs.

Necessity of office visits for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are the most common symptomatic reason to seek ambulatory care, but many ARI visits may not be necessary. To measure the proportion of primary care ARI visits that may not require an office visit. We identified 58398 ARI visits to 14 primary care practices between May 2011 and May 2012 and randomly selected 500 visits, 439 of which were new ARI visits. We separated non-visit-required information [e.g. history of present illness (HPI), past medical history, etc.] from information that required an office visit (e.g. physical exam, testing, etc.). Reviewing non-visit-required information, we identified the diagnosis (HPI diagnosis) and whether office visit appeared necessary. Independently, we reviewed the visit-required information and determined if the visit changed antibiotic management. Based on non-visit-required information, 72% (316/439) of visits did not appear to require an office visit. The most common diagnoses were non-specific upper respiratory infection (39%), sinusitis (24%) and acute bronchitis (22%). The HPI diagnosis was an exact match for clinicians' diagnosis in 67% (213/316) of visits. After reviewing the visit-required information, antibiotic management did not change for 87% (276/316) of visits. For the remaining 13% (40/316) for which the visit changed management, the clinician prescribed an antibiotic for an antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (65%; 26/40); prescribed an antibiotic for a non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnosis (25%; 10/40); or avoided an antibiotic prescription for patients with an HPI diagnosis of sinusitis (10%; 4/40). About two-thirds of primary care ARI visits may not be necessary for appropriate antibiotic management.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available. We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients.The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this.We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively.There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms. Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death.

Effect of Physicians' Attitudes and Knowledge on the Quality of Antibiotic Prescription: A Cohort Study.

Resistance increases with the use and abuse of antibiotics. Since physicians are primarily responsible for the decision to use antibiotics, ascertaining the attitudes and knowledge that underlie their prescribing habits is thus a prerequisite for improving prescription. Three-year follow-up cohort study (2008–2010) targeting primary-care physicians (n = 2100) in Galicia, a region in NW Spain. We used data obtained from a postal survey to assess knowledge and attitudes. A physician was deemed to have demonstrated Appropriate Quality Prescription of Antibiotics (dependent variable) in any case where half or more of the indicators proposed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption had values that were better than the reference values for Spain. The mail-questionnaire response rate was 68·0% (1428/2100). The adjusted increase in the interquartile OR of displaying good prescribing of antibiotics for each attitude was: 205% for fear ("When in doubt, it is better to ensure that a patient is cured of an infection by using a broad-spectrum antibiotic"; 95%CI: 125% to 321%); 119% for better knowledge ("Amoxicillin is useful for resolving most respiratory infections in primary care"; 95%CI: 67% to 193%); and 21% for complacency with patients' demands ("Antibiotics are often prescribed due to patients' demands"; 95%CI: 0% to 45%). Due to the fact that physicians' knowledge and attitudes are potentially modifiable, the implementation of purpose-designed educational interventions based on the attitudes identified may well serve to improve antibiotic prescription.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in patients with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

Background Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. Unnecessary antibiotic use will, in many cases, not be beneficial to the patients' recovery and expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, as a causal link exists between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance, reducing unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling this important problem. Antibiotic resistance puts increasing burdens on healthcare services and renders patients at risk of future ineffective treatments, in turn increasing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. One strategy aiming to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is the guidance of antibiotic treatment by use of a point-of-care biomarker. A point-of-care biomarker of infection forms part of the acute phase response to acute tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma and inflammation) and may in the correct clinical context be used as a surrogate marker of infection,possibly assisting the doctor in the clinical management of ARIs.Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of infection to guide antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of age.Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014), EMBASE (2010 to January 2014), CINAHL (1981 to January 2014), Web of Science (1955 to January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to January 2014).Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard of care. We included trials that randomised individual patients as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients(cluster-RCTs).Two review authors independently extracted data on the following outcomes: i) impact on antibiotic use; ii) duration of and recovery from infection; iii) complications including the number of re-consultations, hospitalisations and mortality; iv) patient satisfaction. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and applied GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with a high level of heterogeneity in pre-specified subgroups of individually and cluster-RCTs.Main results The only point-of-care biomarker of infection currently available to primary care identified in this review was C-reactive protein. We included six trials (3284 participants; 139 children) that evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test. The available information was from trials with a low to moderate risk of bias that address the main objectives of this review.Overall a reduction in the use of antibiotic treatments was found in the C-reactive protein group (631/1685) versus standard of care(785/1599). However, the high level of heterogeneity and the statistically significant test for subgroup differences between the three RCTs and three cluster-RCTs suggest that the results of the meta-analysis on antibiotic use should be interpreted with caution and the pooled effect estimate (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; I2 statistic = 68%) may not be meaningful.The observed heterogeneity disappeared in our pre planned subgroup analysis based on study design: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; I2 statistic = 5% for RCTs and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75; I2 statistic = 0% for cluster-RCTs, suggesting that this was the cause of the observed heterogeneity.There was no difference between using a C-reactive protein point-of-care test and standard care in clinical recovery (defined as at least substantial improvement at day 7 and 28 or need for re-consultations day 28). However, we noted an increase in hospitalisations in the C-reactive protein group in one study, but this was based on few events and may be a chance finding. No deaths were reported in any of the included studies.We classified the quality of the evidence as moderate according to GRADE due to imprecision of the main effect estimate.Authors' conclusions A point-of-care biomarker (e.g. C-reactive protein) to guide antibiotic treatment of ARIs in primary care can reduce antibiotic use,although the degree of reduction remains uncertain. Used as an adjunct to a doctor's clinical examination this reduction in antibiotic use did not affect patient-reported outcomes, including recovery from and duration of illness.However, a possible increase in hospitalisations is of concern. A more precise effect estimate is needed to assess the costs of the intervention and compare the use of a point-of-care biomarker to other antibiotic-saving strategies.

Integrating Prediction Rules Into Clinical Work Flow

35. Mainous AG III, Lambourne CA, Nietert PJ. Impact of a clinical decision support system on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care: quasi-experimental trial. J AmMed Inform Assoc. 2013;20(2):317-324. 36. Magrabi F, Westbrook JI, Coiera EW.What factors are associated with the integration of evidence retrieval technology into routine general practice settings? Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(10):701-709.

Rationale, design and organization of the delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) trial: a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies in the non-complicated acute respiratory tract infections in general practice

BackgroundRespiratory tract infections are an important burden in primary care and it’s known that they are usually self-limited and that antibiotics only alter its course slightly. This together with the alarming increase of bacterial resistance due to increased use of antimicrobials calls for a need to consider strategies to reduce their use. One of these strategies is the delayed prescription of antibiotics.MethodsMulticentric, parallel, randomised controlled trial comparing four antibiotic prescribing strategies in acute non-complicated respiratory tract infections. We will include acute pharyngitis, rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (mild to moderate). The therapeutic strategies compared are: immediate antibiotic treatment, no antibiotic treatment, and two delayed antibiotic prescribing (DAP) strategies with structured advice to use a course of antibiotics in case of worsening of symptoms or not improving (prescription given to patient or prescription left at the reception of the primary care centre 3 days after the first medical visit).DiscussionDelayed antibiotic prescription has been widely used in Anglo-Saxon countries, however, in Southern Europe there has been little research about this topic. The DAP trial wil evaluate two different delayed strategies in Spain for the main respiratory infections in primary care.Trial registrationThis trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number http://NCT01363531.

Adoption of a clinical decision support system to promote judicious use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care

PurposeOveruse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in primary care is an established risk factor for worsening antimicrobial resistance. The “Reducing Inappropriate Prescribing of Antibiotics by Primary Care Clinicians” study is assessing the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) on antibiotic prescribing for ARIs using a multimethod intervention to facilitate CDSS adoption. The purpose of this report is to describe use of the CDSS, as well as facilitators and barriers to its adoption, during the first year of the 15-month intervention. MethodsBetween January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, 39 providers in 9 practices in US states participated in this study. Quarterly EHR based audit and feedback, practice site visits for academic detailing, performance review and CDSS training, and “best-practice” dissemination during two meetings of study participants were used to facilitate CDSS adoption. Mixed methods were used to evaluate adoption of the CDSS. Using data extracted from the EHR, CDSS use for ARI was calculated. To determine facilitators and barriers of CDSS adoption, semi-structured group interviews were conducted with providers and staff at each practice. ResultsDuring the first year of implementation, the ABX-TRIP CDSS was used 14,086 times for ARI encounters. Overall, practice use of the CDSS during ARI encounters ranged from 39.4% to 77.2%. Median use of the CDSS for adult patients was 58.2% and 68.6% for pediatric patients. Key factors associated with CDSS adoption include the perception by providers that it assists with decision making and stimulates patient discussions, engagement of non-physician staff and an iterative CDSS development process. ConclusionsAdoption of a custom designed CDSS in the first year of implementation is promising. Successful implementation of such technology requires a focus not only on the technological solution itself, but on its integration with the entire clinical workplace.

Trends in primary-care consultations, comorbidities, and antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections in The Netherlands before implementation of pneumococcal vaccines for infants

The burden of respiratory infections is mainly seen in primary healthcare. To evaluate the potential impact of new preventive strategies against respiratory infections, such as the implementation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for infants in 2006 in The Netherlands, we conducted a baseline retrospective cohort study of electronic primary-care patient records to assess consultation rates, comorbidities and antibiotic prescription rates for respiratory infections in primary care. We found that between 1995 and 2005, overall registered consultation rates for lower respiratory tract infections had increased by 42·4%, upper respiratory infections declined by 4·9%, and otitis media remained unchanged. Concomitantly, there was a steady rise in overall comorbidity (75·7%) and antibiotic prescription rates (67·7%). Since Dutch primary-care rates for respiratory infections changed considerably between 1995 and 2005, these changes must be taken into account to properly evaluate the effect of population-based preventive strategies on primary-care utilization.

Effectiveness of anti-inflammatory treatment versus antibiotic therapy and placebo for patients with non-complicated acute bronchitis with purulent sputum. The BAAP Study protocol

BackgroundAcute bronchitis is one of the most prevalent respiratory infections in primary care, and in more than 90% of the cases antibiotics are prescribed, mainly when purulent expectoration is present. However, this process is usually viral in origin and the benefits of antibiotic treatment are marginal. On the other hand, in recent years bronchitis has been considered more as an inflammatory than an infectious process. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a schedule of an oral anti-inflammatory compared with an antibiotic regimen and another group assigned to receive a placebo.Methods and designA total of 420 patients from 15 to 70 years of age with no associated comorbidity, presenting respiratory tract infection of at least one week of evolution, with cough as the predominant symptom, the presence of purulent expectoration and at least one other symptom of the respiratory tract (dyspnoea, wheezing, chest discomfort or pain), with no alternative explanation such as pneumonia, will be included in a prospective, randomised and controlled, clinical trial with placebo. The patients will be randomised to receive one of three treatments: ibuprofen, amoxycillin and clavulanic acid or placebo for 10 days. The main outcome measure is the number of days with frequent cough defined by the symptom diary with a score of 1 or more.DiscussionThis trial is designed to evaluate the number of days with frequent cough with anti-inflammatory treatment compared with antimicrobial treatment and placebo in previously healthy patients with a clinical picture of acute bronchitis and purulent expectoration. It is hypothesized that anti-inflammatory treatment is more effective than antibiotic treatment to reduce cough, which is the most disturbing symptom for patients with this infection.Trial registrationISRCTN07852892

Feasibility of a randomised trial of a continuing medical education program in shared decision-making on the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care: the DECISION+ pilot trial

BackgroundThe misuse and limited effectiveness of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are well documented, and current approaches targeting physicians or patients to improve appropriate use have had limited effect. Shared decision-making could be a promising strategy to improve appropriate antibiotic use for ARIs, but very little is known about its implementation processes and outcomes in clinical settings. In this matter, pilot studies have played a key role in health science research over the past years in providing information for the planning, justification, and/or refinement of larger studies. The objective of our study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the study design, procedures, and intervention of the DECISION+ program, a continuing medical education program in shared decision-making among family physicians and their patients on the optimal use of antibiotics for treating ARIs in primary care.MethodsA pilot clustered randomised trial was conducted. Family medicine groups (FMGs) were randomly assigned, to either the DECISION+ program, which included three 3-hour workshops over a four- to six-month period, or a control group that had a delayed exposure to the program.ResultsAmong 21 FMGs contacted, 5 (24%) agreed to participate in the pilot study. A total of 39 family physicians (18 in the two experimental and 21 in the three control FMGs) and their 544 patients consulting for an ARI were recruited. The proportion of recruited family physicians who participated in all three workshops was 46% (50% for the experimental group and 43% for the control group), and the overall mean level of satisfaction regarding the workshops was 94%.ConclusionsThis trial, while aiming to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a larger study, has identified important opportunities for improving the design of a definitive trial. This pilot trial is informative for researchers and clinicians interested in designing and/or conducting studies with FMGs regarding training of physicians in shared decision-making.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.Gov NCT00354315

Barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of DECISION+, a continuing medical education program for optimizing decisions about antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care: A study protocol

BackgroundIn North America, acute respiratory infections are the main reason for doctors' visits in primary care. Family physicians and their patients overuse antibiotics for treating acute respiratory infections. In a pilot clustered randomized trial, we showed that DECISION+, a continuing medical education program in shared decision making, has the potential to reduce the overuse of antibiotics for treating acute respiratory infections. DECISION+ learning activities consisted of three interactive sessions of three hours each, reminders at the point of care, and feedback to doctors on their agreement with patients about comfort with the decision whether to use antibiotics. The objective of this study is to identify the barriers and facilitators to physicians' participation in DECISION+ with the goal of disseminating DECISION+ on a larger scale.Methods/designThis descriptive study will use mixed methods and retrospective and prospective components. All analyses will be based on an adapted version of the Ottawa Model of Research Use. First, we will use qualitative methods to analyze the following retrospective data from the pilot study: the logbooks of eight research assistants, the transcriptions of 15 training sessions, and 27 participant evaluations of the DECISION+ training sessions. Second, we will collect prospective data in semi-structured focus groups composed of family physicians to identify barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of a future training program similar to DECISION+. All 39 family physicians exposed to DECISION+ during the pilot project will be eligible to participate. We will use a self-administered questionnaire based on Azjen's Theory of Planned Behaviour to assess participants' intention to take part in future training programs similar to DECISION+.DiscussionBarriers and facilitators identified in this project will guide modifications to DECISION+, a continuing medical education program in shared decision making regarding the use of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections, to facilitate its dissemination in primary care on a large scale. Our results should help continuing medical educators develop a continuing medical education program in shared decision making for other clinically relevant topics. This will help optimize clinical decisions in primary care.

An assessment of the effect of statin use on the incidence of acute respiratory infections in England during winters 1998–1999 to 2005–2006

Statins reduce cardiovascular mortality and related risks associated with pneumonia suggesting potentially beneficial use in influenza pandemics. We investigated the effect of current statin use on acute respiratory infections in primary care. Data from anonymized electronic medical records of persons aged 45 years were examined for statin use, chronic morbidity, respiratory diagnoses, vaccination procedures, and immune suppression. Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for statin users vs. non-users in respiratory infection outcomes. A total of 329 881 person-year observations included 18% statin users and 46% influenza vaccinees. Adjusted ORs for statin users vs. non-users were: influenza-like illness, 1.05 (95% CI 0.92-1.20); acute bronchitis, 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15); pneumonia, 0.91 (95% CI 0.73-1.13); all acute respiratory infections, 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.07); and urinary tract infections, 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.98). We found no benefit in respiratory infection outcomes attributable to statin use, although uniformly higher ORs in non-vaccinated statin users might suggest synergism between statins and influenza vaccination.