Knowledge and awareness of the general public and perception of pharmacists about antibiotic resistance

Background Antibiotic resistance (AR) continues to be a serious problem. Many factors contribute to AR, including inappropriate use of antibiotics, in which both healthcare professionals and patients play a contributing role. This study aimed to assess the awareness and knowledge of antibiotic usage and AR among the general public (in affluent and deprived areas) and community pharmacists' (CPs') in Greater London. Methods A cross-sectional survey involving members of the public was conducted between July 2014 and February 2015. Stage one involved members of the public (N = 384) residing in affluent areas of London. The second stage targeted public (N = 384) in deprived areas of London. In addition, CPs (N = 240) across the same areas were also surveyed. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS Software packages. Results Response rate: 36% (n = 139/384) and 57% (n = 220/384) and 25% (n = 60/240) of public residing in affluent areas, deprived areas and of CPs respectively was achieved. Definitive trends in knowledge of how antibiotics work could not be drawn to distinguish between affluent and deprived areas. However, public respondents residing in affluent areas possessed better understanding of AR and prudent use of antibiotics, and this was statistically significant in both cases (p < 0.05). Exposure to an antibiotic campaign (32% in affluent areas, 17% in deprived areas) did not raise public respondents' knowledge on AR and only partially raised their general knowledge on antibiotics usage. Only 20% of public residing in deprived areas received counselling from a CP, among them 74% had an antibiotic prescribed on at least one previous occasion. Those who received counselling displayed better knowledge about concordance/adherence with respect to antibiotic usage (p < 0.05) whereas exposure to an antibiotic campaign made no significant impact on knowledge about concordance/adherence. Conclusion The study highlights that there has been no change in the status quo with respect to awareness of antibiotic usage and AR even after the implementation of several awareness campaigns in England. Those who benefited from CP counselling showed a significant better knowledge towards prudent antibiotic usage which stresses the importance of CPs' counselling on antibiotic prescription

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal