Search

Background: Variation in prescription of antibiotics in primary care can indicate poor clinical practice that contributes to the increase of resistant strains. General Practitioners (GPs), as a professional group, are expected to have a fairly homogeneous prescribing style. In this paper, we describe variation in prescribing style within and across groups of GPs from six countries. Methods: Cross-sectional study with the inclusion of 457 GPs and 6394 sore throat patients. We describe variation in prescribing antibiotics for sore throat patients across six countries and assess whether variation in “prescribing style” - understood as a subjective tendency to prescribe - has an important effect on variation in prescription of antibiotics by using the concept of prescribing style as a latent variable in a multivariable model. We report variation as a Median Odds Ratio (MOR) which is the transformation of the random effect variance onto an odds ratio; Thus, MOR = 1 means similar odds or strict homogeneity between GPs' prescribing style, while a MOR higher than 1 denotes heterogeneity in prescribing style. Results: In all countries some GPs always prescribed antibiotics to all their patients, while other GPs never did. After adjusting for patient and GP characteristics, prescribing style in the group of GPs from Russia was about three times more heterogeneous than the prescribing style in the group of GPs from Denmark - Median Odds Ratio (6.8, 95% CI 3.1;8.8) and (2.6, 95% CI 2.2;4.4) respectively. Conclusion: Prescribing style is an important source of variation in prescription of antibiotics within and across countries, even after adjusting for patient and GP characteristics. Interventions aimed at influencing the prescribing style of GPs must encompass context-specific actions at the policy-making level alongside GP-targeted interventions to enable GPs to react more objectively to the external demands that are in place when making the decision of prescribing antibiotics or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To predict antibiotic use after initial treatment with ibuprofen using data from a randomised controlled trial comparing ibuprofen to pivmecillinam in the treatment of women with symptoms of an uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI)., Setting: 16 sites in a primary care setting in Norway, Sweden and Denmark., Participants: Data from 181 non-pregnant women aged 18-60 presenting with symptoms of uncomplicated UTI, initially treated with ibuprofen., Methods: Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model, we conducted analyses to see if baseline information could help us predict which women could be treated with ibuprofen without risking treatment failure and which women should be recommended antibiotics., Results: Of the 143 women included in the final analysis, 77 (53.8%) recovered without antibiotics and 66 (46.2 %) were subsequently prescribed antibiotics. In the unadjusted binary logistic regression, the number of days with symptoms before inclusion (<3 days) and feeling moderately unwell or worse (≥4 on a scale of 0-6) were significant predictors for subsequent antibiotic use. In the adjusted model, no predictors were significantly associated with subsequent antibiotic use. The area under the curve of the final model was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.57 to 0.74)., Conclusion: We did not find any baseline information that significantly predicted the use of antibiotic treatment. Identifying women who need antibiotic treatment to manage their uncomplicated UTI is still challenging. Larger data sets are needed to develop models that are more accurate., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01849926)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: support from The Norwegian Research Council for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)