Developing and evaluating interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing by general practitioners of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A randomised controlled trial to compare paper-based and web-based modelling experiments
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Much implementation research is focused on full-scale trials with little evidence of preceding modelling work. The Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions has argued for more and better theoretical and exploratory work prior to a trial as a means of improving intervention development. Intervention modelling experiments (IMEs) are a way of exploring and refining an intervention before moving to a full-scale trial. They do this by delivering key elements of the intervention in a simulation that approximates clinical practice by, for example, presenting general practitioners (GPs) with a clinical scenario about making a treatment decision. METHODS: The current proposal will run a full, web-based IME involving 250 GPs that will advance the methodology of IMEs by directly comparing results with an earlier paper-based IME. Moreover, the web-based IME will evaluate an intervention that can be put into a full-scale trial that aims to reduce antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in primary care. The study will also include a trial of email versus postal invitations to participate. DISCUSSION: More effective behaviour change interventions are needed and this study will develop one such intervention and a system to model and test future interventions. This system will be applicable to any situation in the National Health Service where behaviour needs to be modified, including interventions aimed directly at the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT01206738.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the case of an intervention that does not influence the outcomes as expected, trials often fail to detect or report whether the lack of intervention effect is due to sub-optimal intervention design, implementation failure or genuine ineffectiveness.
“However, in the case of an intervention that does not influence the outcomes as expected, trials often fail to detect or report whether the lack of intervention effect is due to sub-optimal intervention design, implementation failure or genuine ineffectiveness [7, 8].”
From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Biomedcentral http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1472-6963-8-11-s2.doc
- Ranji SR Steinman MA Shojania KG Sundaram V Lewis R Arnold S Gonzales R Shojania KG et al Antibiotic prescribing behavior Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Technical Review 9 2006 4 Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 255 261 20734528
- Authors
- Treweek, S., Ricketts, I. W., Francis, J., Eccles, M., Bonetti, D., Pitts, N. B., MacLennan, G., Sullivan, F., Jones, C., Weal, M., & Barnett, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Dundee (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Treweek, Shaun
- ORCID
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2011-03-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-16
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3058065
- OpenAlex
- W2140368570
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, upper respiratory tract infection, general practitioners, web-based simulation, behaviour change interventions, primary care, intervention development, MRC framework for complex interventions
- MeSH terms
- Anti-Bacterial Agents, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Research Design, Respiratory Tract Infections, Program Evaluation, Sample Size, Patient Selection, Internet, Inappropriate Prescribing, General Practitioners
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