Is it getting easier to obtain antibiotics in the UK?
Open accessAbstract
Public knowledge and understanding of antibiotics are poor, with only 56% of the UK general public aware that antibiotics cannot kill viruses,1 and those with poorer knowledge are more likely to use them.1 Clinical assessment therefore remains a vital step in assessing the need for and safety of antibiotics, and an essential opportunity for education about appropriate use, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and self-care. In the UK, antibiotics are, with very few exceptions, only prescribable by doctors or other health professionals with prescribing qualifications. This has meant that, until recently, access to antibiotics has been possible only through face-to-face medical assessment in primary or secondary care, providing a significant disincentive to seeking antibiotics unnecessarily. Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in UK primary care remains of concern,2 but antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) initiatives are having a measurable effect, with prescribing rates falling in response to interventions.3 However, novel routes to obtaining antibiotics, associated with either a lower threshold for prescribing or issuing of antibiotics without medical assessment, undermine these strategies and are likely to increase inappropriate use. Workforce shortage and increasing demand in primary care has led many NHS providers to try alternatives to face-to-face appointments as a means of managing workload. Telephone consultations are now commonplace in NHS primary care, and continued government pressure for greater integration of technology means that many practices give patients the option of sending queries to their GP via email or online forms. Public demand for more convenient access …
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?
Antibiotic prescribing behavior can be influenced by nonclinical factors unique to remote consultations, such as the inability to physically examine the patient.
“In particular, antibiotic prescribing behavior can be influenced by nonclinical factors that are unique to remote consultations, such as the inability to physically examine the patient [8].”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
Compared to face-to-face consultations, PCPs order fewer tests and investigations and are unable to physically examine patients in remote settings, which can affect the appropriateness of patient management.
“Compared to face-to-face consultations, PCPs order fewer tests and investigations and are unable to physically examine patients in remote settings, which can affect the appropriateness of patient management [8,28].”
From Impact of Remote Consultations on Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Health Care: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
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 18 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. Safe, secure and controlled: managing the supply chain of antimicrobials. London: Wellcome Trust and HM Government, 2015. https://amr-review.org/sites/default/files/ SafeSecureandControlledShortPaper.pdf (accessed 20 Dec 2018).
- Authors
- Hayhoe, B., Greenfield, G., & Majeed, A.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Venue
- British Journal of General Practice
- Published
- 2019-01-31
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 679
- Pages
- 54-55
- ISSN
- 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-5242
- PMC
- PMC6355282
- OpenAlex
- W2913968276
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2015-21-008)
- Department of Health and Social Care
- Imperial College London
- 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
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- antibiotic access, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, antimicrobial resistance, antimicrobial stewardship, telephone consultation, online prescribing, self-medication, public knowledge of antibiotics, primary care workload, self-care
- MeSH terms
- Medical Overuse, Antimicrobial Stewardship, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Attitude to Health, United Kingdom, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Self Medication, Inappropriate Prescribing, Patient Medication Knowledge
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