MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spillover From an Intervention on Antibiotic Prescribing for Family Physicians

2025· article· en· W4411874428 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kiran Saqib, Noah Ivers, Kevin A. Brown, Nick Daneman, Valerie Leung, Bradley J. Langford, Gary Garber, Jeremy Grimshaw, Michael Silverman, Monica Taljaard, Jamie Brehaut, Kednapa Thavorn, Meagan Lacroix, Lindsay Friedman, Jennifer Shuldiner, Tara Gomes, Sharon Gushue, Jerome A. Leis, Merrick Zwarenstein, Kevin L. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook HospitalWomen's College HospitalToronto East General HospitalUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionRandomized controlled trialAuditFamily medicinePoisson regressionAcademic detailingPopulationPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)PediatricsPrimary careInternal medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Antibiotic audit and feedback is effective at reducing antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Objective: To evaluate the spillover of an audit-and-feedback intervention originally targeted at patients aged 65 years or older on a broader population of all age groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that was conducted among primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada. Physicians were randomized in a 4:1 allocation, with a peer comparison feedback letter sent in January 2022. Physicians in the control group received no letter. The randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 2021 to December 2022, and this analysis was performed from March to June 2024. Exposure: A mailed antibiotic prescribing feedback letter, with peer comparison. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total number of antibiotic prescriptions by physicians at 12 months after the intervention for patients of all ages. This analysis was conducted utilizing a different administrative data source than the original trial; this source contained antibiotic prescription counts for all patient age groups. Data were analyzed with Poisson regression models, adjusted for baseline prescribing and stratified by patient age and sex. Results: Overall, 4964 of 5097 randomized physicians (97.4%) were included in this analysis. There were 3967 (74.5%) in the intervention group and 997 (25.5%) in the control group; 2766 physicians (55.7%) were male, and 2549 (51.3%) had been in practice for 25 years or more. The intervention group showed a reduction in antibiotic prescriptions at 12 months after intervention compared with the control group (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.93-0.94). Significant reductions were seen across all age and sex groups and for antibiotics typically used for respiratory infections. Additionally, the proportion of prescriptions exceeding 7 days decreased significantly in the intervention group (aRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.82-0.83). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of peer comparison antibiotic audit and feedback for physicians with data from patients aged 65 and older, the intervention group had a reduction in antibiotic prescriptions across all patient ages. These findings suggest that routinely collected administrative data can be effectively used for implementing and evaluating antibiotic audit and feedback, even when limited to older patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04594200.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207