Kwame Peprah Boaitey, Tammy Hoffmann, Emma Baillie, Mina Bakhit
{"title":"探索全科医生对自然病史信息价值的认识,以及他们对指南资源的了解和使用,以支持对自限性感染开具抗生素处方:一项在澳大利亚全科医生中开展的定性研究。","authors":"Kwame Peprah Boaitey, Tammy Hoffmann, Emma Baillie, Mina Bakhit","doi":"10.1071/PY22258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":8651,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of primary health","volume":" ","pages":"558-565"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring general practitioners' perception of the value of natural history information and their awareness and use of guidelines' resources to support antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting infections: a qualitative study in Australian general practice.\",\"authors\":\"Kwame Peprah Boaitey, Tammy Hoffmann, Emma Baillie, Mina Bakhit\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/PY22258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"558-565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian journal of primary health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22258\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of primary health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/PY22258","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring general practitioners' perception of the value of natural history information and their awareness and use of guidelines' resources to support antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting infections: a qualitative study in Australian general practice.
Background: The newest version of the Therapeutic Guidelines' antibiotic chapter introduced patient- and clinician-facing resources to support decision-making about antibiotic use for self-limiting infections. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) are aware of and use these resources, including the natural history information they contain. We explored GPs' perceptions of the value and their use of natural history information, and their use of the Therapeutic Guidelines' resources (summary table, discussion boxes, decision aids) to support antibiotic decision-making.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 21 Australian GPs were conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.
Results: Four themes emerged: (1) GPs perceive natural history information as valuable in consultations for self-limiting conditions and use it for a range of purposes, but desire specific information for infectious and non-infectious conditions; (2) GPs' reasons for using patient-facing resources were manifold, including managing patients' expectations for antibiotics, legitimising the decision not to provide antibiotics and as a prescription substitute; (3) the guidelines are a useful and important educational resource, but typically not consulted at the time of deciding whether to prescribe antibiotics; and (4) experience and attitude towards shared decision-making and looking up information during consultations influenced whether GPs involved patients in decision-making and used a decision aid.
Conclusions: GPs perceived natural history information to be valuable in discussions about antibiotic use for self-limiting conditions. Patient and clinician resources were generally perceived as useful, although reasons for use varied, and a few barriers to use were reported.
期刊介绍:
Australian Journal of Primary Health integrates the theory and practise of community health services and primary health care. The journal publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research, reviews, policy reports and analyses from around the world. Articles cover a range of issues influencing community health services and primary health care, particularly comprehensive primary health care research, evidence-based practice (excluding discipline-specific clinical interventions) and primary health care policy issues.
Australian Journal of Primary Health is an important international resource for all individuals and organisations involved in the planning, provision or practise of primary health care.
Australian Journal of Primary Health is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of La Trobe University.