Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Alice X T Xu,Kevin Brown,Kevin L Schwartz,Soheila Aghlmandi,Sarah Alderson,Jamie Brehaut,Benjamin C Brown,Heiner C Bucher,Janet Clarkson,An De Sutter,Nick A Francis,Jeremy Grimshaw,Ronny Gunnarsson,Michael Hallsworth,Lars Hemkens,Sigurd Høye,Tasneem Khan,Donna Lecky,Felicia Leung,Jeremy Leung,Morten Lindbæk,Jeffrey A Linder,Carl Llor,Paul Little,Denise O'Connor,Céline Pulcini,Kalisha Ramlackhan,Craig R Ramsay,Pär-Daniel Sundvall,Monica Taljaard,Pia Touboul Lundgren,Akke Vellinga,Jan Y Verbakel,Theo J Verheij,Carl Wikberg,Noah Ivers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciae604
IF: 20.999
2024-12-12
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Abstract:Background This systematic review evaluates the effect of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care and examines factors that may explain the variation in effectiveness. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving A&F interventions targeting antibiotic prescribing in primary care were included in the systematic review. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to May 2024. Trial, participant, and intervention characteristics were extracted independently by two researchers. Random effects meta-analyses of trials that compared interventions with and without A&F were conducted for four outcomes: 1) total antibiotic prescribing volume; 2) unnecessary antibiotic initiation; 3) excessive prescription duration, and 4) broad-spectrum antibiotic selection. A stratified analysis was also performed based on study characteristics and A&F intervention design features for total antibiotic volume. Results A total of 56 RCTs fit the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A&F was associated with an 11% relative reduction in antibiotic prescribing volume (N=21 studies, rate ratio [RR]=0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 0.95; I2=97); 23% relative reduction in unnecessary antibiotic initiation (N=16 studies, RR=0.77; 95%CI 0.68, 0.87; I2=72); 13% relative reduction in prolonged duration of antibiotic course (N=4 studies, RR=0.87 95%CI 0.81, 0.94; I2=86); and 17% relative reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotic selection (N=17 studies, RR=0.83 95%CI 0.75, 0.93; I2=96). Discussion A&F interventions reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care. However, heterogeneity was substantial, outcome definitions were not standardized across the trials, and intervention fidelity was not consistently assessed. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research FRN 173704 Registration Prospero (CRD42022298297)
immunology,infectious diseases,microbiology