corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7714

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Steinman MA, Ranji SR, Shojania KG, Gonzales R.
Improving antibiotic selection: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of quality improvement strategies.
Med Care 2006 Jul; 44:(7):617-28
http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?an=00005650-200607000-00003


Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess which interventions are most effective at improving the prescribing of recommended antibiotics for acute outpatient infections.

DESIGN AND METHODS: We undertook a systematic review with quantitative analysis of the Cochrane Registry Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) database, supplemented by MEDLINE and hand-searches. Inclusion criteria included clinical trials with contemporaneous or strict historical controls that reported data on antibiotic selection in acute outpatient infections. The effect size of studies with different intervention types were compared using nonparametric statistics. To maximize comparability between studies, quantitative analysis was restricted to studies that reported absolute changes in the amount of or percent compliance with recommended antibiotic prescribing.

RESULTS: Twenty-six studies reporting 33 trials met inclusion criteria. Most interventions used clinician education alone or in combination with audit and feedback. Among the 22 comparisons amenable to quantitative analysis, recommended antibiotic prescribing improved by a median of 10.6% (interquartile range [IQR] 3.4-18.2%). Trials evaluating clinician education alone reported larger effects than interventions combining clinician education with audit and feedback (median effect size 13.9% [IQR 8.6-21.6%] vs. 3.4% [IQR 1.8-9.7%], P = 0.03). This result was confounded by trial sample size, as trials having a smaller number of participating clinicians reported larger effects and were more likely to use clinician education alone. Active forms of education, sustained interventions, and other features traditionally associated with successful quality improvement interventions were not associated with effect size and showed no evidence of confounding the association between clinician education-only strategies and outcome.

CONCLUSIONS: Multidimensional interventions using audit and feedback to improve antibiotic selection were less effective than interventions using clinician education alone. Although confounding may partially account for this finding, our results suggest that enhancing the intensity of a focused intervention may be preferable to a less intense, multidimensional approach.

Keywords:
Publication Types: Meta-Analysis Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Review MeSH Terms: Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use* Bacterial Infections/drug therapy* Drug Utilization Education, Medical, Continuing/methods Humans Knowledge of Results (Psychology) Medical Audit Physician's Practice Patterns* Quality Assurance, Health Care/methods* Substances: Anti-Bacterial Agents

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.