A tailored e-learning gives long-term changes in determinants of GPs’ benzodiazepines prescribing: a pretest-posttest study with self report assessments

Objective: Despite guidelines and campaigns, general practitioners (GPs) continue to overprescribe benzodiazepines (BZDs). New approaches to improve prescribing are needed. Using behavior change techniques and tailoring interventions to user characteristics are vital to promote behavior change. This study evaluated the impact of a tailored e-learning module on factors known to determine BZD prescribing within GPs. Design: A pretest-posttest study design with three self-report assessments concerning determinants of BZD prescribing: at baseline, immediately after the module (short term) and six months after completion (long term). Setting: Flanders (Belgium) Intervention: A tailored e-module that focuses on avoiding initial BZD prescriptions and using psychological interventions as an alternative. Subjects: 244 GPs Main outcome measures: Assessed determinants include GPs’ attitudes concerning treatment options, perceptions of the patient and self-efficacy beliefs. Readiness to adhere to prescribing guidelines was evaluated through assessing motivation, self-efficacy and implementability of non-pharmacological interventions. Results: A significant and durable impact on determinants of BZD prescribing was observed. GPs underwent desirable changes in attitudes, perceptions and self-efficacy beliefs and these changes remained significant six months later. Conclusion: Tailoring an e-intervention to target group characteristics appears to be successful in promoting behavioral change in experienced GPs. Significant and lasting changes were observed in determinants of prescribing BZDs

The lesser evil?: initiating a benzodiazepine prescription in general practice: a qualitative study on GPs' perspectives

Objective. Chronic benzodiazepine (BZD) use is widespread and linked with adverse effects. There is consensus concerning the importance of initiating BZD as a crucial moment. Nevertheless specific research in this field is lacking. This paper addresses the views of GPs on why they start prescribing BZDs to first-time users. Design. Qualitative study with five focus groups analysed using a systematic content analysis. Setting. Regions of Ghent and Brussels in Belgium. Subjects. A total of 35 general practitioners. Main outcome measure. The GPs' perspective on their initiating of BZD prescribing. Results. GPs reported that they are cautious in initiating BZD usage. At the same time, GPs feel overwhelmed by the psychosocial problems of their patients. They show empathy by prescribing. They feel in certain situations there are no other solutions and they experience BZDs as the lesser evil. They admit to resorting to BZDs because of time restraint and lack of alternatives. GPs do not perceive the addictive nature of BZD consumption as a problem with first-time users. GPs do not specifically mention patients' demand as an element for starting. Conclusion. The main concern of GPs is to help the patient. GPs should be aware of the addictive nature of BZD even in low doses and a non-pharmacological approach should be seen as the best first approach. If GPs decide to prescribe a BZD they should make plain to the patient that the medication is only a "temporary" solution with clear agreements with regard to medication withdrawal

Barriers to nonpharmacologic treatments for stress, anxiety, and insomnia: Family physicians’ attitudes toward benzodiazepine prescribing

OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes of FPs toward benzodiazepine (BZD) prescribing and the perceived barriers to nonpharmacologic approaches to managing stress, anxiety, and insomnia. DESIGN: A questionnaire including 32 statements about treatment of insomnia, stress, and anxiety. SETTING: Local quality groups for FPs in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 948 Belgian FPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers to using nonpharmacologic approaches in family practice. RESULTS: We identified 3 different groups of FPs according to their attitudes about BZD prescribing. A first relatively big group of FPs (39%) were not really concerned about the risks of BZD prescribing. Those in the second group (17%) were aware of the problems associated with BZDs, but did not perceive it to be their role to use nonpharmacologic approaches in family practice. Those in the third group (44%) were concerned about BZD prescribing and found it to be a "bad solution," but were faced with various barriers to applying nonpharmacologic approaches. Surprisingly, we found that nearly 97% of FPs thought that most people were eligible for nonpharmacologic approaches, but experienced implementation barriers at the level of the patient, the level of the FP, and the level of the health care system. CONCLUSION: Using different education and behavioural-change strategies for different FP groups seems important. A large group of FPs does not find prescribing BZDs to be problematic. Sensitizing and alerting FPs to this issue remains very important.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

First benzodiazepine prescriptions: qualitative study of patients' perspectives

OBJECTIVE To explore patients’ views and expectations regarding their first prescription for benzodiazepines (BZDs). DESIGN Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING Patients were recruited from general practices in the regions of Ghent and Brussels in Belgium and were interviewed at home. PARTICIPANTS Fifteen family practice patients who had received prescriptions for BZDs for the first time. METHOD Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by themes using a phenomenologic approach. MAIN FINDINGS Patients had asked their physicians for "something" because they thought they were in serious distress and needed help. They seemed to feel a conflict between the need for medication and the negative connotations surrounding BZD use. Patients used 2 strategies to justify consumption of BZDs: maximizing their problems and minimizing use. Patients knew very little about the medication and did not ask about it. Their expectations regarding continued use were vague, even though they seemed to be aware of the risk of psychological dependency and conditioning mechanisms. Patients did not actively ask for nonpharmacologic alternatives, but when they were offered them, their attitudes toward them were generally positive. CONCLUSION First-time BZD users ask for help with distress, but place the responsibility for solving their problems on their family physicians. Even when short-term users were aware of the concept of psychological dependency, they did not feel the need for more information. Physicians should develop communication strategies to persuade their patients that they take the patients’ problems seriously even though consultations do not always end with prescriptions. It is important that doctors clearly explain the risks and benefits of starting BZD treatment and set limits from the start. This will help doctors manage first-time BZD users more effectively and will help patients avoid chronic use

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis (Review)

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated.To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis.We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 3, 2016), Embase Elsevier (1974 to March 2016), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (2010 to March 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers.Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications or adverse events, or both.Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE tool to assess the overall quality of evidence for the outcomes.We included 19 trials (5839 randomised participants); seven compared penicillin with cephalosporins, six compared penicillin with macrolides, three compared penicillin with carbacephem, one trial compared penicillin with sulphonamides, one trial compared clindamycin with ampicillin, and one trial compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All included trials reported clinical outcomes. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. The overall quality of the evidence assessed using the GRADE tool was low for the outcome 'resolution of symptoms' in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and very low for the outcomes 'resolution of symptoms' of evaluable participants and for adverse events. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals (CIs).There was a difference in symptom resolution in favour of cephalosporins compared with penicillin (evaluable patients analysis odds ratio (OR) for absence of resolution of symptoms 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 20, N = 5, n = 1660; very low quality evidence). However, this was not statistically significant in the ITT analysis (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; N = 5, n = 2018; low quality evidence). Clinical relapse was lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; NNTB 50, N = 4, n = 1386; low quality evidence), but this was found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33, N = 2, n = 770). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin for any of the outcomes. One unpublished trial in children found a better cure rate for azithromycin in a single dose compared to amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; NNTB 18, N = 1, n = 482), but there was no difference between the groups in ITT analysis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; N = 1, n = 673) or at long-term follow-up (evaluable patients analysis OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; N = 1, n = 422). Children experienced more adverse events with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; N = 1, n = 673). Compared with penicillin carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children combined (ITT analysis OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14, N = 3, n = 795), and in the subgroup analysis of children (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8, N = 1, n = 233), but not in the subgroup analysis of adults (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.22, N = 2, n = 562). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides compared with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; N = 1, n = 489). Studies did not report on long-term complications so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.There were no clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be regarded as a first choice treatment for both adults and children. All studies were in high-income countries with low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities where risk of complications remains high

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis (Review)

Background: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. Objectives: We assessed the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics on clinical outcomes, relapse, complications and adverse events in GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Search strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to July Week 4, 2010) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2010). Selection criteria: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, complications, adverse events. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data. Main results: Seventeen trials (5352 participants) were included; 16 compared with penicillin (six with cephalosporins, six with macrolides, three with carbacephem and one with sulfonamides), one trial compared clindamycin and ampicillin. Randomisation reporting, allocation concealment and blinding were poor. There was no difference in symptom resolution between cephalosporins and penicillin (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; N = 5; n = 2018; odds ratio for absence of resolution of symptoms (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12). Clinical relapse was lower with cephalosporins (N = 4; n = 1386; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99); overall number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50), but found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin. Carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment (N = 3; n = 795; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14), but only in children (N = 2; n = 233; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8.3). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides (N = 1, n = 489; OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15). Authors' conclusions: Evidence is insufficient for clinically meaningful differences between antibiotics for GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be recommended as first choice