Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care: a qualitative study.

IF 2 Q2 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
BJGP Open Pub Date : 2025-08-26 DOI:10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136
Marta Santillo, Caity Roleston, Kelsey Armitage, Catherine Porter, Joanne Fielding, Marta Wanat, Shadia Ahmed, Sinisa Savic, Christopher Butler, Sue Pavitt, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine
{"title":"Patients' acceptance of a penicillin allergy de-labelling programme in primary care: a qualitative study.","authors":"Marta Santillo, Caity Roleston, Kelsey Armitage, Catherine Porter, Joanne Fielding, Marta Wanat, Shadia Ahmed, Sinisa Savic, Christopher Butler, Sue Pavitt, Jonathan Sandoe, Sarah Tonkin-Crine","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these people are likely to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is denied first-line antibiotics. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) was safe and effective in de-labelling patients as allergic and improving antibiotic prescribing and patient health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate patients' experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and their acceptance of de-labelling following a negative allergy test.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who took part in the PAAP intervention arm of the ALABAMA trial.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>As part of a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in the ALABAMA trial, we conducted interviews with patients in the PAAP intervention arm. Data from interviews with patients were analysed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 28 participants interviewed, two received a positive PAT result and 26 received a negative PAT result; of these, 24 accepted and two declined de-labelling. At point of trial recruitment, many patients already doubted that they were allergic to penicillin. Patients were happy to attend PAT and felt cared for and safe at the hospital. These factors led to most people trusting their negative test result and accepting de-labelling.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The patients we interviewed engaged with the PAAP intervention and, when testing negative, were predominantly willing to have their allergy record changed and to take penicillin in future. We highlight factors that influenced patients' acceptance of de-labelling to facilitate future adoption of PAAP. These factors, which should be considered when planning for penicillin allergy testing services, were as follows: patients identifying themselves as low risk before the test; PAT being perceived as trustworthy and safe; patients' previous experience of penicillin allergy and reactions; patients' understanding of penicillin reactions; and clear communication after de-labelling.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these people are likely to be truly allergic. Consequently, a significant portion of the population is denied first-line antibiotics. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aimed to determine if a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) was safe and effective in de-labelling patients as allergic and improving antibiotic prescribing and patient health outcomes.

Aim: To investigate patients' experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) and their acceptance of de-labelling following a negative allergy test.

Design & setting: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients who took part in the PAAP intervention arm of the ALABAMA trial.

Method: As part of a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded in the ALABAMA trial, we conducted interviews with patients in the PAAP intervention arm. Data from interviews with patients were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Of the 28 participants interviewed, two received a positive PAT result and 26 received a negative PAT result; of these, 24 accepted and two declined de-labelling. At point of trial recruitment, many patients already doubted that they were allergic to penicillin. Patients were happy to attend PAT and felt cared for and safe at the hospital. These factors led to most people trusting their negative test result and accepting de-labelling.

Conclusion: The patients we interviewed engaged with the PAAP intervention and, when testing negative, were predominantly willing to have their allergy record changed and to take penicillin in future. We highlight factors that influenced patients' acceptance of de-labelling to facilitate future adoption of PAAP. These factors, which should be considered when planning for penicillin allergy testing services, were as follows: patients identifying themselves as low risk before the test; PAT being perceived as trustworthy and safe; patients' previous experience of penicillin allergy and reactions; patients' understanding of penicillin reactions; and clear communication after de-labelling.

患者在初级保健中接受青霉素过敏去标签规划的情况。
背景:大约6%的英国全科医生有青霉素过敏的记录,但这些人中只有不到10%的人可能真正过敏。因此,很大一部分人口无法获得一线抗生素。阿拉巴马试验旨在确定青霉素过敏评估途径(PAAP)在去除过敏患者标签并改善抗生素处方和患者健康结果方面是否安全有效。目的:调查青霉素过敏试验(PAT)患者的经历以及他们在过敏试验阴性后对去标签的接受程度。设计与背景:这是一项质性研究,采用半结构化访谈的方式对参加阿拉巴马试验PAAP干预组的患者进行访谈。方法:作为阿拉巴马试验中嵌入的混合方法过程评估的一部分,我们对PAAP干预组的患者进行了访谈。对患者访谈数据进行专题分析。结果:受访的28名参与者中,2人获得PAT阳性结果,26人获得PAT阴性结果;其中,24家接受,2家拒绝去标签。在试验招募时,许多患者已经怀疑自己对青霉素过敏。患者很高兴参加PAT,并感到在医院受到照顾和安全。这些因素导致大多数人相信他们的阴性检测结果并接受去标签。结论:我们采访的患者参与了PAAP干预,当检测结果为阴性时,他们主要愿意改变他们的过敏记录,并在未来服用青霉素。我们强调影响患者接受去标签的因素,以促进未来采用PAAP。我们在规划青霉素过敏试验服务时应考虑的因素是:患者在试验前认为自己是低风险的,PAT被认为是值得信赖和安全的,患者以前的青霉素过敏和反应经历,患者对青霉素反应的理解以及在取消标签后的明确沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJGP Open
BJGP Open Medicine-Family Practice
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
181
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信