Search

Background: Citizen science is a way to democratise science by involving groups of citizens in the research process. Clinical guidelines are used to improve practice, but their implementation can be limited. Involving patients and the public can enhance guideline implementation, but there is uncertainty about the best approaches to achieve this. Citizen science is a potential way to involve patients and the public in improving clinical guideline implementation. We aimed to explore the application of citizen science methods to involve patients and the public in the dissemination and implementation of clinical guidelines in oral health and dentistry., Methods: We developed GUIDE (GUideline Implementation in oral health and DEntistry), a citizen science online platform, using a participatory approach with researchers, oral health professionals, guideline developers and citizens. Recruitment was conducted exclusively online. The platform focused on prespecified challenges related to oral health assessment guidelines, and asked citizens to generate ideas, as well as vote and comment on other citizens' ideas to improve those challenges. Citizens also shared their views via surveys and two online synchronous group meetings. Data were collected on participant's demographics, platform engagement and experience of taking part. The most promising idea category was identified by an advisory group based on engagement, feasibility and relevance. We presented quantitative data using descriptive statistics and analysed qualitative data using inductive and deductive thematic analysis., Results: The platform was open for 6 months and we recruited 189 citizens, from which over 90 citizens actively engaged with the platform. Most citizens were over 34 years (64%), female (58%) and had a university degree (50%). They generated 128 ideas, 146 comments and 248 votes. The challenge that led to most engagement was related to prevention and oral health self-care. To take this challenge forward, citizens generated a further 36 ideas to improve a pre-existing National Health Service oral care prevention leaflet. Citizens discussed motivations to take part in the platform (understanding, values, self-care), reasons to stay engaged (communication and feedback, outputs and impact, and relevance of topics discussed) and suggestions to improve future platforms., Conclusion: Citizen science is an effective approach to generate and prioritise ideas from a group of citizens to improve oral health and dental services. Prevention and oral health self-care were of particular interest to citizens. More research is needed to ensure recruitment of a diverse group of citizens and to improve retention in citizen science projects., Patient or Public Contribution: This project was inherently conducted with the input of public partners (citizen scientists) in all key aspects of its conduct and interpretation. In addition, two public partners were part of the research team and contributed to the design of the project, as well as key decisions related to its conduct, analysis, interpretation and dissemination and are co-authors of this manuscript., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The first publication of this review in Issue 3, 2005 included studies up to November 2003. This update adds studies to December 2006 and focuses on application of a new method for meta-analysis of interrupted time series studies and application of new Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Risk of Bias criteria to all studies in the review, including those studies in the previously published version. The aim of the review is to evaluate the impact of interventions from the perspective of antibiotic stewardship. The two objectives of antibiotic stewardship are first to ensure effective treatment for patients with bacterial infection and second support professionals and patients to reduce unnecessary use and minimize collateral damage., Objectives: To estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions that, alone or in combination, are effective in antibiotic stewardship for hospital inpatients, to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens or Clostridium difficile infection and their impact on clinical outcome., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE from 1980 to December 2006 and the EPOC specialized register in July 2007 and February 2009 and bibliographies of retrieved articles. The main comparison is between interventions that had a restrictive element and those that were purely persuasive. Restrictive interventions were implemented through restriction of the freedom of prescribers to select some antibiotics. Persuasive interventions used one or more of the following methods for changing professional behaviour: dissemination of educational resources, reminders, audit and feedback, or educational outreach. Restrictive interventions could contain persuasive elements., Selection Criteria: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before-after (CBA) and interrupted time series studies (ITS). Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by EPOC. The intervention had to include a component that aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients, either by increasing effective treatment or by reducing unnecessary treatment. The results had to include interpretable data about the effect of the intervention on antibiotic prescribing or microbial outcomes or relevant clinical outcomes., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors extracted data and assessed quality. We performed meta-regression of ITS studies to compare the results of persuasive and restrictive interventions. Persuasive interventions advised physicians about how to prescribe or gave them feedback about how they prescribed. Restrictive interventions put a limit on how they prescribed; for example, physicians had to have approval from an infection specialist in order to prescribe an antibiotic. We standardized the results of some ITS studies so that they are on the same scale (percent change in outcome), thereby facilitating comparisons of different interventions. To do this, we used the change in level and change in slope to estimate the effect size with increasing time after the intervention (one month, six months, one year, etc) as the percent change in level at each time point. We did not extrapolate beyond the end of data collection after the intervention. The meta-regression was performed using standard weighted linear regression with the standard errors of the coefficients adjusted where necessary., Main Results: For this update we included 89 studies that reported 95 interventions. Of the 89 studies, 56 were ITSs (of which 4 were controlled ITSs), 25 were RCT (of which 5 were cluster-RCTs), 5 were CBAs and 3 were CCTs (of which 1 was a cluster-CCT).Most (80/95, 84%) of the interventions targeted the antibiotic prescribed (choice of antibiotic, timing of first dose and route of administration). The remaining 15 interventions aimed to change exposure of patients to antibiotics by targeting the decision to treat or the duration of treatment. Reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing data were available for 76 interventions (44 persuasive, 24 restrictive and 8 structural). For the persuasive interventions, the median change in antibiotic prescribing was 42.3% for the ITSs, 31.6% for the controlled ITSs, 17.7% for the CBAs, 3.5% for the cluster-RCTs and 24.7% for the RCTs. The restrictive interventions had a median effect size of 34.7% for the ITSs, 17.1% for the CBAs and 40.5% for the RCTs. The structural interventions had a median effect of 13.3% for the RCTs and 23.6% for the cluster-RCTs. Data about impact on microbial outcomes were available for 21 interventions but only 6 of these also had reliable data about impact on antibiotic prescribing.Meta-analysis of 52 ITS studies was used to compare restrictive versus purely persuasive interventions. Restrictive interventions had significantly greater impact on prescribing outcomes at one month (32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 61%, P = 0.03) and on microbial outcomes at 6 months (53%, 95% CI 31% to 75%, P = 0.001) but there were no significant differences at 12 or 24 months. Interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were associated with reduction in Clostridium difficile infections and colonization or infection with aminoglycoside- or cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes showed that four interventions intended to increase effective prescribing for pneumonia were associated with significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97), whereas nine interventions intended to decrease excessive prescribing were not associated with significant increase in mortality (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06)., Authors' Conclusions: The results show that interventions to reduce excessive antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients can reduce antimicrobial resistance or hospital-acquired infections, and interventions to increase effective prescribing can improve clinical outcome. This update provides more evidence about unintended clinical consequences of interventions and about the effect of interventions to reduce exposure of patients to antibiotics. The meta-analysis supports the use of restrictive interventions when the need is urgent, but suggests that persuasive and restrictive interventions are equally effective after six months.