Cited by 220Antibiotic Use and ResistancePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Training family physicians in shared decision-making to reduce the overuse of antibiotics in acute respiratory infections: a cluster randomized trial

Open access
Légaré, France, Labrecque, Michel, Cauchon, Michel, Castel, Josette, Turcotte, Stéphane, Grimshaw, Jeremy·2012·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few interventions have proven effective in reducing the overuse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. We evaluated the effect of DECISION+2, a shared decision-making training program, on the percentage of patients who decided to take antibiotics after consultation with a physician or resident. METHODS: We performed a randomized trial, clustered at the level of family practice teaching unit, with 2 study arms: DECISION+2 and control. The DECISION+2 training program included a 2-hour online tutorial followed by a 2-hour interactive seminar about shared decision-making. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who decided to use antibiotics immediately after consultation. We also recorded patients' perception that shared decision-making had occurred. Two weeks after the initial consultation, we assessed patients' adherence to the decision, repeat consultation, decisional regret and quality of life. RESULTS: We compared outcomes among 181 patients who consulted 77 physicians in 5 family practice teaching units in the DECISION+2 group, and 178 patients who consulted 72 physicians in 4 family practice teaching units in the control group. The percentage of patients who decided to use antibiotics after consultation was 52.2% in the control group and 27.2% in the DECISION+2 group (absolute difference 25.0%, adjusted relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.68). DECISION+2 was associated with patients taking a more active role in decision-making (Z = 3.9, p < 0.001). Patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation were similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION: The shared decision-making program DECISION+2 enhanced patient participation in decision-making and led to fewer patients deciding to use antibiotics for acute respiratory infections. This reduction did not have a negative effect on patient outcomes 2 weeks after consultation. ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT01116076.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1503/cmaj.120568

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Decision aids are effective tools for promoting shared decision making.

    “Decision aids (DAs) are effective tools for promoting SDM [9], and could also be used to support IP-SDM.”

    From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Randomization section says DECISION+2 included decision aids, and the Abstract reports greater patient participation in decision-making. But the Interpretation section says the trial could not identify which components were effective, so it does not establish that decision aids themselves promoted shared decision-making. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Légaré, F., Labrecque, M., Cauchon, M., Castel, J., Turcotte, S., & Grimshaw, J.
Affiliations
Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2012-07-30
Volume
184
Issue
13
Pages
E726-E734
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2096625895
Cited by
220
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 1
FWCI
17.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Université Laval
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
Keywords
shared decision-making, antibiotic overuse, acute respiratory infections, general practitioners, physician training, patient involvement in treatment decisions, quality of life
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Child, Preschool, Communication, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Respiratory Tract Infections

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