Delayed antibiotic prescription for upper respiratory tract infections in children under primary care:Physicians' views

Background: Overprescribing antibiotics for common or inaccurately diagnosed childhood infections is a frequent problem in primary healthcare in most countries. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions have been shown to reduce the use of antibiotics in primary healthcare. Objective: The aim was to examine primary care physicians’ views on delayed antibiotic prescriptions to preschool children with symptoms of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 1180 physicians working in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark, between January and March 2015. The questions focused on physicians’ attitude and use of delayed antibiotic prescriptions to children with URTIs. Results: The response rate was 49% (n = 574). Seven per cent of the physicians often used delayed prescriptions to children with symptoms of URTI, but 46% believed that delayed prescription could reduce antibiotic use. The physicians’ views on delayed antibiotic prescription were significantly associated with their number of years working in general practice. Parents’ willingness to wait-and-see, need for reassurance, and knowledge about antibiotics influenced the physicians’ views. Also, clinical symptoms and signs, parents’ willingness to shoulder the responsibility, the capability of observation without antibiotic treatment, and structural factors like out-of-hour services were relevant factors in the decision. Conclusions: Most physicians, especially those with fewer years of practice, had a positive attitude towards delayed antibiotic prescription. Several factors influence the views of the physicians—from perceptions of parents to larger structural elements and years of experience

Health alliance for prudent prescribing and yield of antibiotics in a patient-centred perspective (HAPPY PATIENT): a before-and-after intervention and implementation study protocol

Background Excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics is the most important driver of antimicrobial resistance. The aim of the HAPPY PATIENT project is to evaluate the adaptation of European Union (EU) recommendations on the prudent use of antimicrobials in human health by evaluating the impact of a multifaceted intervention targeting different categories of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on common community-acquired infectious diseases, especially respiratory and urinary tract infections. Methods/design HAPPY PATIENT was initiated in January 2021 and is planned to end in December 2023. The partners of this project include 15 organizations from 9 countries. Diverse HCPs (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians) will be audited by the Audit Project Odense (APO) method before and after an intervention in four different settings: general practice, out of hours services, nursing homes and community pharmacies in four high antibiotic prescribing countries (France, Poland, Greece, and Spain) and one low prescribing country (Lithuania). About 25 individuals from each professional group will be recruited in each country, who will register at least 25 patients with community-acquired infections during each audit period. Shortly before the second registration participants will undertake a multifaceted intervention and will receive the results from the first registration to allow the identification of possible quality problems. At these meetings participants will receive training courses on enhancement of communication skills, dissemination of clinical guidelines with recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, posters for the waiting rooms, and leaflets for patients. The results of the second registration will be compared with those obtained in the first audit. Discussion HAPPY PATIENT is an EU-funded project aimed at contributing to the battle against antibiotic resistance through improvement of the quality of management of common community-acquired infections based on interventions by different types of HCPs. It is hypothesized that the use of multifaceted strategies combining active intervention will be effective in reducing inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics.publishedVersio

The predictive effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on low back pain among newly qualified health care workers with and without previous low back pain: a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health care workers have a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP). Although physical exposures in the working environment are linked to an increased risk of LBP, it has been suggested that individual coping strategies, for example fear-avoidance beliefs, could also be important in the development and maintenance of LBP. Accordingly, the main objective of this study was to examine (1) the association between physical work load and LBP, (2) the predictive effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the development of LBP, and (3) the moderating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the association between physical work load and LBP among cases with and without previous LBP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire survey among 5696 newly qualified health care workers who completed a baseline questionnaire shortly before completing their education and a follow-up questionnaire 12 months later. Participants were selected on the following criteria: (a) being female, (b) working in the health care sector (n = 2677). Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the effect of physical work load and fear-avoidance beliefs on the severity of LBP.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For those with previous LBP, physical work load has an importance, but not among those without previous LBP. In relation to fear-avoidance beliefs, there is a positive relation between it and LBP of than 30 days in both groups, i.e. those without and with previous LBP. No moderating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the association between physical work load and LBP was found among cases with and without LBP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both physical work load and fear-avoidance beliefs matters in those with previous LBP. Only fear-avoidance beliefs matters in those without previous LBP. The study did not find a moderating effect of fear-avoidance beliefs on the association between physical work load and LBP.</p