Skip Navigation



Journal of Public Health Advance Access published online on September 4, 2009
Journal of Public Health, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdp081
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gulliford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ashworth, M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gulliford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ashworth, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved.
The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article for non-commercial purposes provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Selective decrease in consultations and antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in UK primary care up to 2006


Martin Gulliford, Professor of Public Health1
Radoslav Latinovic, Database Manager1
Judith Charlton, Research Associate1
Paul Little, Professor in Primary Care Research2
Tjeerd van Staa, Director of Research3,4
Mark Ashworth, Senior Lecturer in General Practice5

1 Department of Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Capital House, 42 Weston St, London SE1 3QD UK
2 Division of Community Clinical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
3 Division of General Practice Research Database, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK
4 Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
5 Department of General Practice and Primary Care, King's College London, London, UK


Address correspondence to Martin Gulliford, E-mail: martin.gulliford{at}kcl.ac.uk

Background The aim of this study was to estimate trends in primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in the UK from 1997 to 2006.

Methods Data were analysed for 100 000 subjects registered with 78 family practices in the UK General Practice Research Database; the numbers of consultations for RTI and associated antibiotic prescriptions were enumerated.

Results The consultation rate for RTI declined in females from 442.2 per 1000 registered patients in 1997 to 330.9 in 2006, and in males from 318.5 to 249.0. The rate of consultations for colds, rhinitis and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) declined by 4.2 (95% CI 2.3–6.1) per 1000 per year in females and by 3.6 (2.3–4.8) in males. The rate of antibiotic prescribing for RTI was higher in females and declined by 8.5 (2.0–15.1) per 1000 in females and 6.7 (2.7–10.8) in males. For colds, rhinitis and URTI, the proportion of consultations with antibiotics was prescribed declined by 1.7% per year in females and 1.8% in males.

Conclusions Decreasing frequency of consultation and antibiotic prescription for colds, rhinitis and ‘URTI’ continues to drive a reduction in the rate of antibiotic utilization for RTIs.

Keywords: antibacterial agents, drug prescription, drug resistance, family practice, microbial, respiratory tract infections


   Introduction
TOP
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The problem of resistance to antimicrobial drugs is growing and appropriate prescribing of antimicrobial drugs is of great public health importance.1 Antibiotic prescribing in the UK declined after reaching a peak in 1995. This decline has been substantial, amounting to a reduction of nearly a quarter in antibiotics prescribed in the community between 1996 and 2002.2 However, since 2000, overall national antibiotic prescribing volumes appear to have remained constant in England (NHS Information Centre, personal communication to M. A., 3 November 2008). Concerns therefore remain that the current levels of antibiotic prescribing are too high, incurring unnecessary costs to the health service, exposing individuals to the risks of unnecessary drug therapy and contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance.3,4

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common. RTIs account for some 300–400 general practice consultations annually per 1000 registered patients5 and RTIs represent one of the most frequent indications for antibiotic drug prescription.1 Prescribing antibiotics to patients with RTIs appears to be driven by a concern to meet patient expectations.6 However, antibiotics do not provide clinical benefit in a majority of RTIs.1,7–10 These illnesses are usually brief and self-limiting, and complications are unusual even without antibiotics.1,11 Reducing antibiotic prescribing for RTIs is therefore both clinically justified and feasible.12

In a previous report, we described trends in antibiotic prescribing for RTI in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) between 1994 and 2000.5 During this period, we noted decreases in rates of consultation for RTI with more modest reductions in the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed. Given the current relative stability of prescribing, this study aimed to determine whether consultation rates for RTIs, and use of antibiotics in patients consulting with RTIs, are continuing to decrease.


   Methods
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Practice and patient selection
Data were obtained from the GPRD.13 The GPRD is a large database comprising the electronic patient records of ~5% of UK general practices. Practices were selected for the present study if they contributed up-to-standard data continuously from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006 and provided exclusively Read-coded data. There were 78 practices included. From the population of all registered subjects, a sample was compiled by taking an independent random sample of 10 000 subjects for each year of study. Eligible subjects were registered with the practice continuously between 1 January and 31 December in the year of study, had records of an ‘acceptable’ standard and were aged 100 years or less. Subjects were sampled with replacement and 94 470 subjects provided 100 000 person years of study.

Analysis
We searched the medical records of subjects for consultations for acute respiratory infections that took place in the index year of study. Sets of medical codes were used to identify consultations for respiratory infections. These included: colds, rhinitis and unspecified upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs); sore throats and pharyngitis; tonsillitis; acute sinusitis; otitis media and earache; influenza; laryngitis and tracheitis, including epiglotitis and croup; and acute bronchitis, pneumonia, chest infection and lower RTI. Details of codes used are available from the authors. Selection of codes was informed by the structure of the Read code classification14 and the International Classification for Primary Care.15

For each consultation, we evaluated whether a prescription for an antimicrobial drug was issued on the same day. We included all drugs listed in Section 5.1 of the British National Formulary16 except for anti-tuberculous and anti-leprotic drugs. Age- and sex-specific consultation rates were estimated and these were used to calculate age-standardized rates using the European Standard Population for reference. Age-standardized rates for antibiotic prescription in RTI per 1000 registered patients and for proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed were also estimated. Linear regression models were fitted to estimate the linear association of year with age-standardized consultation and prescribing rates.


   Results
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Funding
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Data were analysed for 10 000 subjects in each year. The number of RTI consultations and antibiotic prescriptions associated with RTI consultations declined during the period of study (Table 1). Figure 1a shows the age-standardized rates for RTI consultations for males and females between 1997 and 2006. Consultation rates were about one-third higher for females than males. There was an overall decrease in consultation rates during the period of study that was similar for males and females. The linear decrease in consultation rate for RTI was 8.7 (2.2–15.2) per 1000 in females and 6.9 (3.3–10.6) in males. However, the trend was not entirely consistent from year to year. Figure 1b shows the age-standardized rate of antibiotic prescriptions for RTI per 1000 registered patients. The linear decrease in antibiotic prescribing for RTI was 8.5 (2.0–15.1) per 1000 registered patients in females and 6.7 (2.7–10.8) per 1000 in males (Table 1). Figure 1c shows the trend in the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed. The linear decrease was estimated to be 0.8% per year in males and females (Table 1). However, much of the decrease appeared to be between 1997 and 1999 with estimates remaining more or less constant after this date. In contrast to the large differences in consultation rates, there were no gender differences in the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed. There was no overall decrease in total antibiotic utilization for all indications during the period (Fig. 1d and Table 1).


Figure 1
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1 (a) General practice consultation rates for RTIs per 1000 registered patients per year. (b) Antibiotic prescriptions rate for RTI per 1000 registered patients per year. (c) Per cent of RTI consultations with antibiotic prescribed. (d) All antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 registered patients per year. Filled circles, females; open squares, males. Bars represent 95% CIs. Data were standardized to European Standard Population for reference.

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Consultations and antibiotic (AB) prescriptions for acute RTIs by gender and year

 
Table 2 shows the rates of consultation for different groups of RTI. The highest rates of consultation were for ‘colds, rhinitis and other URTIs’. Consultations for these diagnoses declined during the period, with an annual decrease of ~4 per 1000 registered patients in both males and females. Consultation rates also declined for influenza and laryngitis but the estimated declines were considerably smaller than for colds, rhinitis and URTI. Consultations for acute sinusitis declined in females and for otitis media in males. There were no consistent changes in consultations for sore throat, tonsillitis, nor chest infection and pneumonia.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Consultation rate for different groups of RTI

 
Table 3 shows trends in the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed. There was a decrease in the proportion of consultations for colds, rhinitis and URTI at which antibiotics were prescribed. This amounted to an annual decrease of just under 2% per year in both males and females. There was also some evidence for a decrease in antibiotic prescribing for influenza and sore throat in females and otitis media in males. However, there was no consistent change in antibiotic prescribing for laryngitis, sinusitis or acute bronchitis, chest infection or pneumonia. Note that the estimates for influenza show several large fluctuations between years owing to the small number of events resulting from the low recorded consultation rates for these conditions.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed

 

   Discussion
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Funding
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Main findings of this study
These data reveal a striking decline in the rate of primary care consultations for RTI between 1996 and 2006. The decrease amounts to a 25% decline in females and a 22% decline in males. A reduction in consultations for colds, rhinitis and ‘URTIs’ is the main contributor to this decrease. Overall antibiotic prescribing for RTI declined over the 10-year study period up to 2006 by ~36% in females and 32% in males. However, the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed declined by a much smaller amount, 14% in females and 13% in males, showing that the decline in consultations rates was an important driver of the decline in antibiotic prescribing. The decline in antibiotic prescribing was most rapid in the early years of our study, consistent with our previous report,5 but the overall decline in prescribing volumes continued through to 2006. The decline in the earlier years of the period may have been in response to the 1998 publication of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee Report, ‘The Path of Least Resistance’17 as well as primary research studies8 and reviews,7 which received widespread publicity in the medical and lay media.

This study is one of the first to report on gender differences in antibiotic prescribing volumes for RTIs. Throughout the duration of the study, females were prescribed 30–50% more antibiotics for RTIs than males. This was explained by a higher consultation rate for females while the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed was similar in men and women.

We explored the consultation and prescribing pattern for several components of RTIs. The largest and most consistent reductions in consultation rates were observed for consultations coded as ‘colds, rhinitis and URTI’. Although the overall proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics did not decline to the same extent, ‘colds, rhinitis and URTI’ together with ‘influenza’ were the conditions associated with the largest reductions in antibiotic prescribing frequency. There was less consistent or no evidence of a decrease in consultation or prescribing for sore throat, tonsillitis, otitis media or sinusitis. Concern had been expressed that overall reductions in antibiotic prescribing could contribute to rising hospital admissions, and possibly increased mortality, from pneumonia.2,18,19 However, we found no decrease in the proportion of patients who had a recorded diagnosis of ‘acute bronchitis’ or ‘chest infection, pneumonia’ and were prescribed antibiotics. Thus, the decrease in antibiotic utilization for RTIs has been selective and mostly confined to certain types of upper respiratory infection.

What is already known on this topic
The present results show that the favourable trend, reported from the GPRD5,20 and the Royal College of General Practitioner's surveillance system,21 up to 2000 has continued. Decreasing rates of consultation for RTIs (including common cold, pharyngitis, tonsillitis, acute otitis media, laryngitis, influenza, acute bronchitis, pneumonia and lower respiratory infections) have also been reported from Sweden up to 2005.22,23 In the Swedish studies, there was also evidence of decreasing overall antibiotic utilization with little change in the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed.23 In a study from the Netherlands, Kuyvenhoven et al.24 compared data for 1987 with 2001. There were substantial decreases in consultation rates for acute otitis media (decrease of 10.4 per 1000), common cold (71.9 per 1000), sinusitis (12.7 per 1000) and acute tonsillitis (14.1 per 1000), leading to reduced antibiotic prescribing volumes. However, antibiotic prescribing per consultation increased over the period for acute otitis media and common cold while remaining constant for sinusitis and acute tonsillitis.24 In a study from the USA, McCaig et al.25 found that in children aged <15 years, the consultation rate for respiratory infections declined 34% between 1989–90 and 1999–2000. This decrease was mainly accounted for by reduced rates of consultation for otitis media, pharyngitis and bronchitis. Over the 12-year period, there was a 29% decline in antibiotic prescribing per consultation. There were declines in antibiotic prescribing per consultation for pharyngitis and URTI but not for otitis media, sinusitis or bronchitis.25

Previous studies have observed higher antibiotic prescription volumes for females but considered that this was probably attributable to treatment for urinary tract infections.26 Gender differences in consultation rates with RTIs are consistent with previous reports. In the Fourth National Study of Morbidity in General Practice (MSGP4), consultation rates for RTIs were ~1.67 time greater in women than men between the ages of 15 and 65 years, with smaller or no gender differences in the young and old.27 This was confirmed in a comparison of consultation rates estimated from GPRD with MSGP4 data.28 The consistently higher levels of antibiotic prescribing reflect the greater consultation rates for women but once women attend their GP, there is little differential between men and women in the proportion prescribed antibiotics.

What this study adds
Antibiotic prescribing for RTIs has continued to decline in the UK throughout the decade 1997–2006.5,21 This decrease has been most evident for colds, rhinitis and ‘other upper respiratory infections’. These results show that further work is needed to explore effective interventions to reduce high antibiotic prescribing rates for RTIs which are most commonly viral in aetiology. Attempts to reduce antibiotic prescribing generally either concentrate on national campaigns targeting potential patients, with some evidence of success,3 or on interventions aimed at practitioners. For example, Sabuncu et al.29 reported that there was a 26% reduction in antibiotic prescriptions per 100 population from 2002 to 2007 following the introduction of a national campaign (‘Antibiotics are not automatic’). Attempts to influence practitioner prescribing behaviour generally have more limited impact in rigorous evaluations.30 However, the consequences of population and practitioner approaches may interact in the context of consultations. It may be difficult to confidently ascribe the observed changes to either patient or professional behaviour. There may have been changes in the case-mix of consulting patients during this period but the potential impact of case-mix on GP prescribing has not been measured. There may have been increased use of ‘delayed prescribing’ during the period31 and not all prescriptions issued may have resulted in a course of treatment. Rapid diagnostic tests for respiratory illness are becoming available,32 and may be of value,33 but were not in widespread use in the UK primary care during this period. Changing professional behaviour, including communicating messages to patients that antibiotics are not required, may have contributed to changing individual and societal perceptions that some RTIs are amenable to self-treatment rather than a visit to the GP or an antibiotic prescription.

The proportion of consultations resulting in an antibiotic prescription as recently as 2006 is not consistent with current recommendations for good practice in the management of RTIs.34 There seems little justification for prescribing antibiotics in ~90% of sinusitis cases, 70% of cases of otitis media and 40% of cases of laryngitis and tracheitis.34 Continuing high antibiotic prescribing rates for conditions that are mostly viral in aetiology suggests that further work is needed to influence both consultation and prescribing thresholds. Recent NICE guidance on antibiotic prescribing for RTIs may influence practitioners’ prescribing behaviour but its release post-dated our study.34

Limitations of this study
The study had the strength of a large sample of family practices that was not confined to one geographical locality but drawn from across the UK. The GPRD population shows a similar age and sex distribution to the UK population.35 However, we acknowledge that findings might differ in areas that have different characteristics in terms of deprivation category of proportion of ethnic minorities. The same practices were included each year, thus reducing potential bias arising from inter-practice variation. Nevertheless, the practices themselves are likely to have changed over time with potential modification of appointment systems, out-of-hours arrangements and access for acute self-limiting conditions that may have contributed to reductions in consultation rates for RTIs. The total sample was 100 000 overall, and 10 000 in any year of study. However, for the less frequent conditions, there were relatively small numbers of consultations and some of the estimates fluctuated between years of study. The data were collected in clinical practice and standard case definitions were not used leading to difficulties in distinguishing categories such as ‘chest infection’, ‘pneumonia’ or ‘acute bronchitis’. The boundaries between diagnostic categories may have been indistinct in clinical practice but the overall pattern of change is consistent, even if there might have been a degree of diagnostic drift between categories over the course of ten years.

We analysed the numbers of antibiotic prescriptions and did not standardize the volume of antibiotics prescribed. However, national data demonstrate that reductions in the number of prescriptions parallel reductions in the standardized volume of prescribing.2 Our study could only determine prescription rates and not whether these were intended for immediate use. If there was increased use of deferred antibiotic prescribing strategies during the period, in response to publications that endorsed this strategy,36,37 then the number of courses of antibiotics used may have been lower than the apparent prescribing rate for each condition. There may be repeat consultations during a single illness episode that may inflate the apparent consultation rate. However, when we analysed only the first consultation in any calendar month, the consultation rate was ~8% lower and prescribing rate was ~5% lower, but the proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed was negligibly different from those reported. The results are therefore likely to be relatively insensitive to repeat consultations in an episode.

Although the present findings are generally consistent with our earlier report,5 a number of methodological differences should be noted. The data for this study were derived from a more recent version of GPRD. The practices included in this report represent a different sample from those studied previously and may have included practices and practitioners whose prescribing habits differed from those in the earlier sample. The code lists and diagnostic grouping for this study were updated and aligned, to the extent possible, with other diagnostic groupings. Thus, although we emphasize the overall consistency of the two reports, there are methodological differences that may account for differences of detail.


   Funding
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
Acknowledgements
 References
 
This research was supported by a grant from the Wellcome Trust and Research Councils’ Joint Initiative in Electronic Patient Records and Databases in Research. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by internal funds from King's College London, Division of Health and Social Care Research.


   Acknowledgements
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 Acknowledgements
References
 
This study is based in part on data from the Full Feature General Practice Research Database obtained under licence from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. However, the interpretation and conclusions contained in this study are those of the authors alone. Access to the GPRD database was funded through the Medical Research Council's licence agreement with MHRA. We thank David Lloyd of the Information Centre, Leeds, for providing us with national antibiotic prescribing data.


   References
TOP
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prescribing of Antibiotics for Self-limiting Respiratory Tract Infections in Adults and Children in Primary Care (2008) London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Final scope 130907.
  2. Majeed A, Williams S, Jarman B, et al. Prescribing of antibiotics and admissions for respiratory tract infections in England. BMJ (2004) 329:879.[Free Full Text]
  3. Goossens H, Ferech M, Vander Stichele R, et al. Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a cross-national database study. Lancet (2005) 365:579–87.[Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Dagan R, Leibovitz E, Greenberg D, et al. Dynamics of pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization during the first days of antibiotic treatment in pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J (1998) 17:880–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Ashworth M, Latinovic R, Charlton J, et al. Why has antibiotic prescribing for respiratory illness declined in primary care? A longitudinal study using the General Practice Research Database. J Public Health (2004) 26:268–74.[CrossRef]
  6. Little P, Somerville J, Williamson I, et al. Randomised controlled trial of self management leaflets and booklets for minor illness provided by post. BMJ (2001) 322:1214.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Del Mar CB, Glasziou PP, Spinks AB. Antibiotics for sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2000) (2). CD000023.
  8. Little P, Williamson I, Warner G, et al. Open randomised trial of prescribing strategies in managing sore throat. BMJ (1997) 314:722.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Little P, Gould C, Moore M, et al. Predictors of poor outcome and benefits from antibiotics in children with acute otitis media: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ (2002) 325:22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Macfarlane J, Holmes W, Gard P, et al. Reducing antibiotic use for acute bronchitis in primary care: blinded, randomised controlled trial of patient information leaflet. BMJ (2002) 324:91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Little P, Gould C, Williamson I, et al. Reattendance and complications in a randomised trial of prescribing strategies for sore throat: the medicalising effect of prescribing antibiotics. BMJ (1997) 315:350–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Cosby JL, Francis N, Butler CC. The role of evidence in the decline of antibiotic use for common respiratory infections in primary care. Lancet Infect Dis (2007) 7:749–56.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. In: General Practice Research Database (2008) London: MHRA. http://www.gprd.com/home/ (20 November 2008, date last accessed).
  14. NHS Information Authority. Clinical Terms (Read Codes). Summarised Product Description. (2004) Birmingham: NIS Information Authority.
  15. Okkes IM, Becker HW, Bernstein RM, et al. The March 2002 update of the electronic version of ICPC-2: A step forward to the use of ICD-10 as a nomenclature and a terminology for ICPC-2. Fam Pract (2002) 19:543–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. (2002) London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.
  17. Standing Medical Advisory Committee. The Path of Least Resistance. (2009) London: Department of Health.
  18. Mainous AG III, Saxena S, Hueston WJ, et al. Ambulatory antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis and cough and hospital admissions for respiratory infections: time trends analysis. J R Soc Med (2006) 99:358–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Winchester CC, Macfarlane TV, Thomas M, et al. Antibiotic prescribing and outcomes of lower respiratory tract infection in UK primary care. Chest (2009) 135:1163–72.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Frischer M, Heatlie H, Norwood J, et al. Trends in antibiotic prescribing and associated indications in primary care from 1993 to 1997. J Public Health Med (2001) 23:69–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Fleming DM, Ross AM, Cross KW, et al. The reducing incidence of respiratory tract infection and its relation to antibiotic prescribing. Br J Gen Pract (2003) 53:778–83.[Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Andre M, Vernby A, Odenholt I, et al. Diagnosis-prescribing surveys in 2000, 2002 and 2005 in Swedish general practice: Consultations, diagnosis, diagnostics and treatment choices. Scand J Infect Dis (2008) 40:1–7.
  23. Neumark T, Brudin L, Engstrom S, et al. Trends in number of consultations and antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections between 1999 and 2005 in primary healthcare in Kalmar County, Southern Sweden. Scand J Prim Health Care (2009) 27:18–24.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Kuyvenhoven M, van EG, Schellevis F, et al. Management of upper respiratory tract infections in Dutch general practice; antibiotic prescribing rates and incidences in 1987 and 2001. Fam Pract (2006) 23:175–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. McCaig LF, Besser RE, Hughes JM. Trends in Antimicrobial Prescribing Rates for Children and Adolescents. JAMA (2002) 287:3096–102.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Wrigley T, Tinto A, Majeed A. Age- and sex-specific antibiotic prescribing patterns in General Practice in England and Wales, 1994 to 1998. Health Stat Q (2002) 14:14–20.
  27. McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J. Morbidity Statistics from General Practice. Fourth National Study 1991–1992. (2008) London: Office for National Statistics. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/MB5No3.pdf (20 November 2008, date last accessed).
  28. Hansell A, Hollowell J, Nichols T, et al. Use of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) for respiratory epidemiology: a comparison with the 4th Morbidity Survey in General Practice (MSGP4). Thorax (1999) 54:413–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Sabuncu E, David J, Bernede-Bauduin C, et al. Significant reduction of antibiotic use in the community after a nationwide campaign in France, 2002–2007. PLoS Med (2009) 6:e1000084.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Ranji SR, Steinman MA, Shojania KG, et al. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies. Volume 4: Antibiotic Prescribing Behaviour. (2006) Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Publication number 04(06)-0051-4.
  31. Sharland M, Kendall H, Yeates D, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in general practice and hospital admissions for peritonsillar abscess, mastoiditis, and rheumatic fever in children: time trend analysis. BMJ (2005) 331:328–9.[Free Full Text]
  32. van der Meer V, Neven AK, van den Broek PJ, et al. Diagnostic value of C reactive protein in infections of the lower respiratory tract: systematic review. BMJ (2005) 331:26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Cals JW, Butler CC, Hopstaken RM, et al. Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ (2009) 338:b1374.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Tan T, Little P, Stokes T, on behalf of the Guideline Development Group. Antibiotic prescribing for self limiting respiratory tract infections in primary care: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ (2008) 337:a437.[Free Full Text]
  35. Lawson DH, Sherman V, Hollowell J. The General Practice Research Database. Scientific and Ethical Advisory Group. QJM (1998) 91:445–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Dowell J, Pitkethly M, Bain J, et al. A randomised controlled trial of delayed antibiotic prescribing as a strategy for managing uncomplicated respiratory tract infection in primary care. Br J Gen Pract (2001) 51:200–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Little P, Rumsby K, Kelly J, et al. Information leaflet and antibiotic prescribing strategies for acute lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA (2005) 293:3029–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gulliford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ashworth, M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gulliford, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ashworth, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?