How much information about antibiotics do people recall after consulting in primary care?

Background. Sharing information with patients within a consultation about their infection and value of antibiotics can help reduce antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections. However, we do not know how often information is given about antibiotics or infections, and if this is related to knowledge and attitudes. Objectives. To determine the public’s reported use of antibiotics, receipt of information from health professionals about antibiotics and resistance, trust in health professionals and knowledge levels about antibiotics and resistance. Methods. Face-to-face computer-assisted survey with 1625 adults over 15 years in randomly selected households using multistage sampling. Rim weighting was used to correct for any selection biases. Results. About 88% trusted their GP to determine the need for antibiotics. Of those who took antibiotics in the past year, 62% were for a throat infection, 60% for sinus infection and 42% for a cough. Although 67% who had been prescribed an antibiotic recalled being given advice about their infection or antibiotics, only 8% recalled information about antibiotic resistance. Those in lower social grades were less likely to recall advice. About 44% correctly indicated that antibiotics effectively treat bacterial rather than viral infections. Only 45% agreed that ‘healthy people can carry antibiotic resistant bacteria’. Conclusion. GPs and health carers are trusted decision-makers, but could share more information with patients about the need or not for antibiotics, self-care and antibiotic resistance, especially with younger patients and those of lower social grade. Better ways are needed for effective sharing of information about antibiotic resistance

Overview of the science show stands.

<p>Overview of the science show stands.</p

Results: percentage of all questions in each section correct before and after lesson, by questionnaire section.

<p>Results: percentage of all questions in each section correct before and after lesson, by questionnaire section.</p

Improvement scores by statement for adults [≥19 year old age group].

<p>Improvement scores by statement for adults [≥19 year old age group].</p

Student questionnaire used before and after the farm hygiene lesson.

<p>Student questionnaire used before and after the farm hygiene lesson.</p

Participant recruitment.

<p>Participant recruitment.</p

Antibiotic awareness knowledge questions showing baseline percentage correct responses for children and adults.

<p>Antibiotic awareness knowledge questions showing baseline percentage correct responses for children and adults.</p

How much information about antibiotics do people recall after consulting in primary care?

Funding: Public Health England

Implementation of a quality improvement programme using the Active Patient Link call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of childhood vaccinations: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation

Introduction Call and recall systems provide actionable intelligence to improve equity and timeliness of childhood vaccinations, which have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will evaluate the effectiveness, fidelity and sustainability of a data-enabled quality improvement programme delivered in primary care using an Active Patient Link Immunisation (APL-Imms) call and recall system to improve timeliness and equity of uptake in a multiethnic disadvantaged urban population. We will use qualitative methods to evaluate programme delivery, focusing on uptake and use, implementation barriers and service improvements for clinical and non-clinical primary care staff, its fidelity and sustainability.Methods and analysis This is a mixed-methods observational study in 284 general practices in north east London (NEL). The target population will be preschool-aged children eligible to receive diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP) or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations and registered with an NEL general practice. The intervention comprises an in-practice call and recall tool, facilitation and training, and financial incentives. The quantitative evaluation will include interrupted time Series analyses and Slope Index of Inequality. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of children receiving at least one dose of a DTaP-containing or MMR vaccination defined, respectively, as administered between age 6 weeks and 6 months or between 12 and 18 months of age. The qualitative evaluation will involve a ‘Think Aloud’ method and semistructured interviews of stakeholders to assess impact, fidelity and sustainability of the APL-Imms tool, and fidelity of the implementation by facilitators.Ethics and dissemination The research team has been granted permission from data controllers in participating practices to use deidentified data for audit purposes. As findings will be specific to the local context, research ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and to stakeholders, including parents, health providers and commissioners