Cited by 49Antibiotic Use and ResistanceHealthcare cost, quality, practicesHealth Policy Implementation Science

A RCT evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of academic detailing versus postal prescribing feedback in changing GP antibiotic prescribing

Naughton, Corina, Feely, John, Bennett, Kathleen·2009·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of academic detailing (AD) plus postal prescribing feedback versus postal prescribing feedback alone in reducing: (i) the overall rate of antibiotic; and (ii) proportion of second-line antibiotic prescribing. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of an outreach prescriber adviser service versus a postal prescribing feedback service was evaluated. METHODS: Volunteer general practitioner practices (n = 98) were randomized to receive prescribing feedback via postal bulletin (PB) (n = 50) or academic detailing plus postal bulletin (AD) (n = 48). Data analysis was based on the HSE-primary care reimbursement service (HSE-PCRS) prescribing database. Regression (beta) coefficients, indicating proportion change in prescribing per month, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated from the total cost of the intervention divided by percentage change in antibiotic prescribing in AD versus PB group. RESULTS: Immediately post intervention PB (beta = -0.02, 95% CI -0.04, -0.001) and AD (beta = -0.02, 95% CI -0.03, -0.001) practices significantly decreased overall antibiotic prescribing. Second-line antibiotic prescribing was also significantly decreased by 2-3% in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in antibiotic prescribing between the randomized groups in the immediate or long-term post-intervention period. In the cost-effectiveness analysis a postal prescribing feedback service would cost euro 88 per percentage change in prescribing practice compared with euro 778 for a prescriber adviser service. CONCLUSION: Prescribing feedback significantly reduced overall and second-line antibiotic prescribing, but academic detailing was not significantly more effective than postal bulletin in changing antibiotic prescribing practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01099.x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Naughton 2009 found no statistically significant effect on antibiotic prescribing in primary care (adjusted change relative to baseline performance in the audit and feedback alone arm = 0%; P = 0.33).

    “antibiotic prescribing in primary care (Naughton 2009: adjusted change relative to baseline performance in the audit and feedback alone arm = 0%; P = 0.33)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naughton, C., Feely, J., & Bennett, K.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Naughton, Corina
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09-24
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
807-812
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W1994239676
Cited by
49
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
academic detailing, prescribing feedback, antibiotic prescribing, second-line antibiotics, general practitioners, cost-effectiveness, primary care prescribing
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Drug Resistance, Microbial, Feedback, Humans, Ireland, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Family, Postal Service, Drug Prescriptions, Program Evaluation, Databases as Topic, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review