Intervention to improve the quality of antimicrobial prescribing for urinary tract infection: a cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overuse of antimicrobial therapy in the community adds to the global spread of antimicrobial resistance, which is jeopardizing the treatment of common infections. METHODS: We designed a cluster randomized complex intervention to improve antimicrobial prescribing for urinary tract infection in Irish general practice. During a 3-month baseline period, all practices received a workshop to promote consultation coding for urinary tract infections. Practices in intervention arms A and B received a second workshop with information on antimicrobial prescribing guidelines and a practice audit report (baseline data). Practices in intervention arm B received additional evidence on delayed prescribing of antimicrobials for suspected urinary tract infection. A reminder integrated into the patient management software suggested first-line treatment and, for practices in arm B, delayed prescribing. Over the 6-month intervention, practices in arms A and B received monthly audit reports of antimicrobial prescribing. RESULTS: The proportion of antimicrobial prescribing according to guidelines for urinary tract infection increased in arms A and B relative to control (adjusted overall odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 3.2; arm A adjusted OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.1; arm B adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.0). An unintended increase in antimicrobial prescribing was observed in the intervention arms relative to control (arm A adjusted OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.0; arm B adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.1). Improvements in guideline-based prescribing were sustained at 5 months after the intervention. INTERPRETATION: A complex intervention, including audit reports and reminders, improved the quality of prescribing for urinary tract infection in Irish general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01913860.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".