Effect of unifaceted and multifaceted interventions on antibiotic prescription control for respiratory diseases: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Author(s):  
Yue Chang ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included randomised controlled trials studies. Results A total of 1,074 studies were obtained of which 58 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-one studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 7 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 19 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 17 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n = 9). Seventeen randomised controlled trials were rated as having a low risk of bias while 2 randomised controlled trials were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multifaceted interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multifaceted interventions to educational interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multifaceted interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multifaceted interventions to educational interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multifaceted interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multifaceted interventions to educational interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing an unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multiple interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multiple interventions to educational interventions interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560. Keywords: Randomized controlled trial, Respiratory diseases, Antibiotic prescriptions, Systematic evaluation


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing an unifaceted and multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion The combination of education, prescription audit, prescription recommendations from experts, public reporting, prescription feedback and patient or family member multiple interventions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates in health care institutions. Moreover, adding multiple interventions to educational interventions interventions can control antibiotic prescription rates and may be a more reasonable method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560. Keywords: Randomized controlled trial, Respiratory diseases, Antibiotic prescriptions, Systematic evaluation


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted or multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion Implementing multiple interventions in health care institutions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates. Adding multiple feedback interventions to educational interventions may be a more reasonable control method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Yue ◽  
Zhezhe Cui ◽  
Guanghong Yang ◽  
Xun He ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The global health system is improperly using antibiotics, particularly in the treatment of respiratory diseases. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of implementing a unifaceted or multifaceted intervention for unreasonable antibiotic prescriptions. Methods Relevant literature published in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese Journal Full-text (CNKI) and Wanfang was searched. Data were independently filtered and extracted by two reviewers based on a pre-designed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane collaborative bias risk tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 1,074 relevant studies were obtained of which 69 were included in the systematic review. Fifty-nine studies reported positive results, that is, the primary results in the intervention groups were superior to those in the control groups. The remaining 10 studies had negative or partially negative results. In 22 studies the outcome variable was the antibiotic prescription rate with detailed reports of the number of prescriptions being further analyzed, of which 19 involved educational interventions for doctors, including: (1) Online training using email, web pages and webinar, (2) Antibiotic guidelines for information dissemination measures by email, postal or telephone reminder, (3) Training doctors in communication skills, (4) Short-term interactive educational seminars, and (5) Short-term field training sessions. Seventeen studies of interventions for health care workers also included: (6) Regular or irregular assessment/audit of antibiotic prescriptions, (7) Prescription recommendations from experts and peers delivered at a meeting or online, (8) Publicly reporting on doctors' antibiotic usage to patients, hospital administrators, and health authorities, (9) Monitoring/feedback prescribing behavior to general practices by email or poster, and (10) Studies involving patients and their families (n=10). Seventeen studies were rated as having a low risk of bias while five were rated as having a high risk of bias. Conclusion Implementing multiple interventions in health care institutions can effectively reduce antibiotic prescription rates. Adding multiple feedback interventions to educational interventions may be a more reasonable control method. Registrations: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42020192560.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.


Author(s):  
Charlotte Parbery-Clark ◽  
Marvellas Lubamba ◽  
Louise Tanner ◽  
Elaine McColl

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAIs), particularly Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) and Animal-Assisted Activity (AAA), in improving mental health outcomes for students in higher education. The number of students in higher education reporting mental health problems and seeking support from universities’ student support services has risen over recent years. Therefore, providing engaging interventions, such as AAIs, that are accessible to large groups of students are attractive. Methods: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from relative inception to end of April 2020. Additionally, a grey literature search was undertaken. Independent screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed, with varying percentages, by two reviewers. Results: After de-duplication, 6248 articles were identified of which 11 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that AAIs could provide short-term beneficial results for anxiety in students attending higher education but with limited evidence for stress, and inconclusive evidence for depression, well-being and mood. For the non-statistically significant results, the studies either did not include a power calculation or were under-powered. Conclusions: Potential emerging evidence for the short-term benefits of AAI for anxiety, and possibly stress, for students in higher education was found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document