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。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最新版《治疗指南》的抗生素章节引入了面向患者和临床医生的资源,以支持自限性感染患者使用抗生素的决策。目前尚不清楚全科医生(GPs)是否了解并使用这些资源,包括其中包含的自然病史信息。我们探讨了全科医生对自然病史信息的价值及其使用的看法,以及他们使用《治疗指南》资源(摘要表、讨论框、决策辅助工具)支持抗生素决策的情况:方法:对 21 名澳大利亚全科医生进行了半结构式访谈。两位独立研究人员对访谈进行了记录、转录和主题分析:结果:出现了四个主题:(1) 全科医生认为自然病史信息对自限性疾病的咨询很有价值,并将其用于多种目的,但希望获得感染性和非感染性疾病的特定信息;(2) 全科医生使用面向患者的资源的原因是多方面的,包括管理患者对抗生素的期望、使不提供抗生素的决定合法化以及作为处方替代品;(3) 指南是有用且重要的教育资源,但在决定是否处方抗生素时通常不会参考指南;以及 (4) 经验和对共同决策的态度以及在咨询过程中查找信息影响了全科医生是否让患者参与决策和使用决策辅助工具。结论:全科医生认为自然病史信息在讨论自限性疾病使用抗生素时很有价值。患者和临床医生资源被普遍认为是有用的,尽管使用的原因各不相同,并且报告了一些使用障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian journal of primary health
Australian journal of primary health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
136
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信