Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic pr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical infectious diseases Vol. 80; no. 2; p. 253
Main Authors: Xu, Alice X T, Brown, Kevin, Schwartz, Kevin L, Aghlmandi, Soheila, Alderson, Sarah, Brehaut, Jamie C, Brown, Benjamin C, Bucher, Heiner C, Clarkson, Janet, De Sutter, An, Francis, Nick A, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Gunnarsson, Ronny, Hallsworth, Michael, Hemkens, Lars, Høye, Sigurd, Khan, Tasneem, Lecky, Donna M, Leung, Felicia, Leung, Jeremy, Lindbæk, Morten, Linder, Jeffrey A, Llor, Carl, Little, Paul, O'Connor, Denise, Pulcini, Céline, Ramlackhan, Kalisha, Ramsay, Craig R, Sundvall, Pär-Daniel, Taljaard, Monica, Touboul Lundgren, Pia, Vellinga, Akke, Verbakel, Jan Y, Verheij, Theo J, Wikberg, Carl, Ivers, Noah
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 24.02.2025
Subjects:
Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use
Antimicrobial Stewardship
Drug Prescriptions - statistics & numerical data
Feedback
Humans
Inappropriate Prescribing - prevention & control
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Primary Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
audit and feedback
primary care
systematic review
antibiotics
ISSN:1537-6591, 1537-6591
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care were included in the systematic review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to May 2024. Trial, participant, and intervention characteristics were extracted independently by 2 researchers. Random effects meta-analyses of trials that compared interventions with and without A&F were conducted for 4 outcomes: (1) total antibiotic prescribing volume; (2) unnecessary antibiotic initiation; (3) excessive prescription duration, and (4) broad-spectrum antibiotic selection. A stratified analysis was also performed based on study characteristics and A&F intervention design features for total antibiotic volume. A total of 56 RCTs fit the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A&F was associated with an 11% relative reduction in antibiotic prescribing volume (N = 21 studies, rate ratio [RR] = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .84, .95; I2 = 97); 23% relative reduction in unnecessary antibiotic initiation (N = 16 studies, RR = 0.77; 95% CI: .68, .87; I2 = 72); 13% relative reduction in prolonged duration of antibiotic course (N = 4 studies, RR = 0.87 95% CI: .81, .94; I2 = 86); and 17% relative reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic selection (N = 17 studies, RR = 0.83 95% CI: .75, .93; I2 = 96). A&F interventions reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, heterogeneity was substantial, outcome definitions were not standardized across the trials, and intervention fidelity was not consistently assessed. Clinical Trials Registration. Prospero (CRD42022298297).
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:1537-6591
1537-6591
DOI:10.1093/cid/ciae604