4.6 Article

Effect of Physicians' Attitudes and Knowledge on the Quality of Antibiotic Prescription: A Cohort Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141820

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria) grant from the Spanish Ministry of Health
  2. Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria) grant from the Mutua Madrilena insurance company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resistance increases with the use and abuse of antibiotics. Since physicians are primarily responsible for the decision to use antibiotics, ascertaining the attitudes and knowledge that underlie their prescribing habits is thus a prerequisite for improving prescription. Three-year follow-up cohort study (2008-2010) targeting primary-care physicians (n = 2100) in Galicia, a region in NW Spain. We used data obtained from a postal survey to assess knowledge and attitudes. A physician was deemed to have demonstrated Appropriate Quality Prescription of Antibiotics (dependent variable) in any case where half or more of the indicators proposed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption had values that were better than the reference values for Spain. The mail-questionnaire response rate was 68.0% (1428/2100). The adjusted increase in the interquartile OR of displaying good prescribing of antibiotics for each attitude was: 205% for fear (When in doubt, it is better to ensure that a patient is cured of an infection by using a broad-spectrum antibiotic; 95% CI: 125% to 321%); 119% for better knowledge (Amoxicillin is useful for resolving most respiratory infections in primary care; 95% CI: 67% to 193%); and 21% for complacency with patients' demands (Antibiotics are often prescribed due to patients' demands; 95% CI: 0% to 45%). Due to the fact that physicians' knowledge and attitudes are potentially modifiable, the implementation of purpose-designed educational interventions based on the attitudes identified may well serve to improve antibiotic prescription.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据