Interventions for improving antibiotic prescribing in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis
========================================================================================================

* Rebecca A J Andrews
* Virginia Hernandez Santiago
* Bruce Guthrie
* Charis A Marwick

## Abstract

**Background** Antibiotic resistance is a public health priority and antibiotic use in humans is a major contributing factor to its development. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing in the community, where most antibiotics are prescribed, are widely implemented with varying effect. The aim was to systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on effectiveness of different types of antibiotic prescribing interventions in the community.

**Methods and Findings** Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched from database inception to 16 August 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing antibiotic stewardship interventions versus usual care in community settings. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Studies were grouped according to type of intervention. Meta-analyses employed random effects models. The outcome for meta-analyses was change in total antibiotic prescribing rates attributable to the intervention, compared to usual care, calculated as percentage differences. Other measures of change in antibiotic prescribing were included in narrative description.

Of 26,130 studies screened, 74 were included, with 53 comparisons from 45 studies meta- analysed. 50% of included studies had high risk of bias. Single interventions with statistically significant reductions in total antibiotic prescribing were point of care tests for antigen detection (−28.0% reduction, 95%CI−38.2 to−17.8); educational materials (−17.0%, −31.0 to - 3.0); printed decision-support systems (−10.8%,−15.7 to -6.0), educational workshops (− 8.7%,−12.8 to -4.7), and; educational outreach (−6.0%,−10.6 to−1.4). Multifaceted interventions were not more effective than single interventions (education + audit and feedback –9.9%, −12.8 to -7.0; other multifaceted -9.4%, −17.2 to −1.6). Effect sizes in sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high risk of bias were similar or larger.

**Conclusions** Community antibiotic stewardship interventions were effective but with considerable variation in effect size. The most effective trial interventions may be more difficult to implement in practice, a key challenge for antibiotic stewardship.

**Systematic review registration** PROSPERO CRD42014010160

## Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing global public health threat,1 which causes significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.2, 3 Predictions published in 2016, of 10 million annual deaths by 2050,4 are consistent with statistical models using real-world data which estimated 4·95 million (95% CI 3·62–6·57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, with 1·27 million (95% CI 0·91–1·71) attributable to AMR.5 Drivers of AMR are multifactorial and include antimicrobial use in animals and agriculture, but inappropriate use and overuse of antibiotics in humans is a major contributing factor. Stopping antibiotic use results in the exponential decay of bacterial resistance at the individual microbiome level,6 and impacts on resistance rates in serious bacterial infection at the human population level. 7 Reasons behind inappropriate use or overuse of antibiotics are complex, where practitioner, patient, societal, and healthcare system factors all interplay.8, 9 Antimicrobial stewardship is the coordinated set of actions designed to promote appropriate use of antimicrobials.10 National and global actions to increase stewardship include the UK AMR Global Action Plan 2019-2024 focusing on reducing unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and WHO GLASS system providing a world-wide platform for surveillance of antibiotic use.11, 12

Community practice or “primary care” is where most antibiotics are prescribed,13 with up to 50% of prescriptions considered inappropriate.14–16 Diagnostic uncertainty and fear of complications contributes,17 along with lack of clinician awareness of the contribution of primary care antibiotic use to AMR.9 Previous literature 18 including systematic reviews of clinician-targeted interventions for improving antibiotic use in inpatient19 and outpatient settings16 found that interventions using professional education, feedback, clinical decision support and delayed prescribing have some effect, and multi-component interventions may be more effective.16 However, the most recent systematic review in the community including a comprehensive range of intervention and infection types is over 15 years old, and the included studies were too heterogenous to meta-analyse, 16 limiting quantitative assessment and comparison of effectiveness. Narrower systematic reviews report that educational interventions, mainly implementing guidelines, can be effective in general20 and for respiratory tract infections,21 and that point of care testing using C-reactive protein (CRP) for respiratory tract infections may also be effective.22, 23 Stewardship interventions should, ideally, encompass the broader clinical context and results from single intervention or infection type cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other indications. There is insufficient up-to-date evidence on which components make a primary care stewardship intervention more effective.

The aim of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyse randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve primary care antibiotic prescribing to estimate their effectiveness and examine which intervention types are more effective.

## Methods

The review was registered on PROSPERO24 and is reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement25.

### Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible if they were randomised clinical trials or cluster randomised trials involving practitioners who prescribe antibiotics in community settings. Community settings included family and general practice, community paediatrics, nursing and residential homes, and clinics attached to hospitals if they were described as a primary care clinic (which is the case in the US). Studies which only involved other hospital clinics or emergency departments were excluded. Interventions which were only patient focussed or public mass media campaigns were not eligible.

### Data sources and search strategy

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify all randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating interventions for improving antibiotic prescribing published on or before 16th August 2021. The Cochrane EPOC Specialised Register was searched for the terms antibiotic* or antimicrobial* in all fields. There were no language restrictions. The complete search strategy is in Supplementary Table S1. The search did not specify healthcare setting, with community interventions identified during screening. Additional studies were identified from bibliographies of included articles.

### Outcome measure

Included studies could measure antibiotic prescribing in various ways, including the decision to prescribe an antibiotic, the choice of which antibiotic to prescribe, the dose or duration of a prescription, measured as changes in total or targeted prescribing, ‘appropriate’ prescribing, compliance with guidelines, or cost.

For meta-analyses, the outcome measure was the difference in total antibiotic prescribing rates in the intervention group, compared to usual care, calculated as the mean percentage difference. This was either the mean difference between intervention and control groups at follow-up or, using the mean change score between baseline and follow-up for each group, the difference in mean change scores between the groups. The latter was preferred if it was reported or could be calculated. Other measures were described in narrative synthesis.

### Study selection and data extraction

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers. Full text articles were appraised by two of four reviewers (RA, VS, BG, CM), after a calibration exercise agreeing common definitions, and inclusion and exclusion rules. Disagreements or uncertainties were resolved by a third reviewer. Studies were grouped by similarity of intervention types based on a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group taxonomy of healthcare interventions,26 which included educational interventions, audit and feedback, reminders including decision support systems (DSS), and “other”. For meta-analysis purposes, studies were further categorised into: educational materials, educational workshops, and educational outreach; audit and feedback; computerised DSS, and printed DSS; point of care testing (POCT) using antigen detection (throat swabs for streptococci or influenza), and POCT using inflammatory markers (finger-prick blood tests for C-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin), and; multifaceted interventions, sub- categorised into education plus audit and feedback, and “other” (where there was no apparent dominant intervention). Studies which could not be meta-analysed and/or did not fit into any group were included in narrative description.

Data extraction was performed by one of two reviewers (RA, VHS) and checked by a second reviewer if required. Factorial trials or multiple active arms of a trial were treated as independent comparisons (*versus* standard care) provided there was no statistically significant interaction reported.

### Synthesis of results

Studies were included in meta-analysis if they reported the difference in total antibiotic prescribing rates between arms in a format that could be synthesised (or provided data which allowed calculation into that format). The measure for meta-analysis was the mean percentage difference in total antibiotic prescribing between intervention and control groups at follow-up, or the difference in the mean change from baseline to follow-up between groups. The latter was preferred if it was reported or could be calculated. Meta- analyses were conducted in RevMan 5.4.1 using a random-effects model, which implements a Mantel-Haenszel method and a generic inverse variance method.27 Sensitivity analyses excluded studies with high risk of bias.

### Risk of bias

Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the 2013 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) tool (Supplementary Table S2),26 by two reviewers (VHS, RA) after a calibration exercise (with BG, CM, who also reviewed cases of discrepancy or doubt). Overall risk of bias was scored ‘Low’ if all criteria were scored as low risk of bias, ’Medium’ if one or two criteria were scored as unclear or high, and ’High’ if more than two criteria were scored as unclear or high.

### Registration

This review was registered in PROSPERO, international prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number CRD42014010160. Deviations from the original protocol with justification are reported in Supplementary Table S3.

## Results

### Included studies

Searches returned 26,130 studies of which 25,748 were excluded during title and abstract screening, with 382 full text articles assessed. 74 studies were included, with 53 comparisons from 45 studies included in meta-analyses (Figure 1, Table 1).

![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F1)

Figure 1 
- PRISMA of Included Studies

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies

### Risk of bias

Overall, 30/74 (41%) studies had high risk of bias, 33/74 (46%) had unclear, and 11/74 (15%) had low (Figure 2, Supplementary Figure S1). The most common sources of high risk of bias were lack of reporting of baseline outcome measures 11/74 (15%), lack of reporting of baseline characteristics 8/74 (11%), lack of blinding, and other bias, both 7/74 (9%). Most studies had low risk of bias in relation to selective outcome reporting 72/74 (97%), completeness of outcome data 72/74 (97%) and allocation concealment 67/74 (91%).

![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F2)

Figure 2 
- Overall Risk of Bias – percentage of studies assigned each category

### Intervention effects

Pooled estimates of intervention effects on total antibiotic prescribing across all intervention types are summarised in Table 2 for primary meta-analyses (Figure 3) and sensitivity meta-analyses (Supplementary Figure S2).

![Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/F3)

Figure 3 
- Forest plots of main intervention effects

View this table:
[Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/23/2024.11.20.24317684/T2)

Table 2 
- Pooled meta-analysis estimates of intervention effects on total antibiotic prescribing

#### Education

##### a. Educational Material

Four studies compared educational material with usual care. Two had high risk of bias28, 29 and two unclear.30, 31 Meta-analysis including three studies28, 29, 31 found a large, significant reduction in total antibiotic prescribing (mean percentage difference −17.0% [95%CI −31.0, - 3.0], p=0.02) (Figure 3a). The fourth trial (a three-armed trial with an educational intervention) found no change in targeted prescribing of a single antibiotic.30

##### b. Educational Workshops

Fourteen studies compared educational workshops with usual care. Five had high risk of bias,28, 32–35 six unclear,36–41 and three low.42–44 Meta-analysis including ten studies28, 33–38, 41, 42, 44 found a moderate, significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (−8.7% [−12.8, -4.7], p<0.001) (Figure 3b). Sensitivity analysis including six studies36–38, 41, 42, 44 found a slightly larger significant reduction (−11.5% [−16.4, -6.5], p<0.001) (Supplementary Figure S2a).

Of the four studies not meta-analysed, two reported significant reductions in antibiotic prescribing for urinary tract infections,32, 40 one reported a 13% improvement in the duration of prescribed antibiotic courses,43 and one reported increased prescribing of a recommended specific antibiotic.39

##### c. Educational Outreach

Sixteen studies compared educational outreach with usual care. Eight had high risk of bias,34, 45–51 five unclear,30, 52–55 and three low.56–58 Meta-analysis including eight studies 34, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57 found a small, significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (−6.0% [−10.6, - 1.4], p=0.01) (Figure 3c). The reduction was larger in sensitivity analysis including four studies52, 54, 55, 57 (−10.2 % [−17.0, −3.4], p=0.003) (Supplementary Figure S2b).

Eight studies were not meta-analysed.30, 45, 47, 48, 50, 53, 56, 58 Four found significantly lower antibiotic prescribing, with two targeting specific antibiotics30, 48 and two targeting respiratory tract infections.56, 58 Two studies found an increase in prescribing of recommended specific antibiotics.45, 47 Two studies found non-significant reductions in prescribing, one of specific antibiotics53 and the other for respiratory tract infections.50

#### Audit and Feedback

Seven studies compared audit and feedback with usual care. One had high risk of bias,59 three unclear,60–62 and three low.44, 63, 64 Meta-analysis of three studies 44, 60, 62 found a small, significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (−2.1% [-3.5, -0.6], p=0.003) (Figure 3d).

Four studies were not meta-analysed. Three reported improvements in prescribing rates for specific antibiotics.59, 61, 63 One reported no difference in median prescribing rates per 100 consultations.64

#### Point of Care Testing (POCT)

##### a. Antigen Detection

Three studies compared POCT for antigen detection with usual care. One had high risk of bias 65 and two had unclear risk of bias.66, 67 Meta-analysis of two studies 66, 67 found a large, significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (–28.0% [-38.2, −17.8], p<0.001) (Figure 3e).

In the study not meta-analysed,65 use of POCT for flu in children increased antibiotic use (9.5% of patients with test performed *versus* 3.9% in those without), particularly among those with a negative test (15.7% *versus* 4.3% of those with a positive test).

##### b. Inflammatory Markers

Nine studies compared POCT for inflammatory markers with usual care. Five had high risk of bias,68–72 three unclear37, 73, 74 and one low.75 Meta-analysis including all nine studies37, 68–75 found no significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (−16.8% [-37.0, 3.3], p=0.10) (Figure 3f), but in sensitivity analysis of four studies37, 73–75 the reduction was larger and statistically significant (−31.3% [-59.6, −3.0], p<0.001) (Supplementary Figure S2c).

#### Decision Support Systems (DSS)

##### a. Computerised

Five studies compared computerised DSS with usual care. Three had high risk of bias,76–78 one unclear,79 and one low.80 Meta-analysis of all five76–80 found a small non-significant reduction in prescribing (−3.7% [−10.8, 3.5], p=0.32) (Figure 3g). Sensitivity analysis of two studies79, 80 found a large, significant reduction (−14.8% [−19.5, −10.0], p<0.001) (Supplementary Figure S2d).

##### b. Printed

Three studies compared printed DSS with usual care. One had high risk of bias,81 one unclear.67 and one low.80 Meta-analysis of all three studies67, 80, 81 found a significant reduction (−10.8% [−15.7, -6.0], p<0.0001) (Figure 3h). Sensitivity analysis including two studies67, 80 found a non-significant reduction of similar magnitude (−9.6% [−19.6, 0.4], p=0.06) (see Supplementary Figure S2e).

#### Multifaceted Interventions

##### a. Education with Audit and Feedback

Five studies compared education and audit and feedback with usual care. Four had unclear risk of bias,60, 82–84 and one low.44 Meta-analysis of all five studies44, 60, 82–84 identified a significant reduction in total antibiotic prescribing (−9.9% [−12.8, -7.0], p<0.001) (Figure 3i).

##### b. Multifaceted Other

Six studies reporting seven interventions compared multifaceted interventions other than education with audit and feedback, with usual care. The interventions included various combinations of education for prescribers and patients, audit and feedback, DSS, POCT, and financial incentives (Table 1). Three had high risk of bias85–87 and three had unclear.75, 88, 89. Meta-analysis of five studies75, 86–89 identified a significant reduction (−9.4% [−17.2, −1.6], p=0.02) (Figure 3j). In sensitivity analysis including three studies,75, 88, 89 the reduction was the same magnitude but no longer significant (−9.3% [-20.0, 1.4], p=0.09) (Supplementary Figure S2f). The study that was not meta-analysed found a combination of audit and feedback and computerised DSS did not change amoxicillin prescribing rates.85

#### Other Interventions

Twelve included studies did not fit into the above intervention groups. Three had high risk of bias,90–92 eight unclear 93–100 and one low.101

One study94 reported longer term follow-up (avg. 3.7 years later) of another included study.37 The follow up data could not be extracted or included seperately, but the previously reported significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing was not sustained.

Three studies examined delayed prescribing, two compared this with usual care for respiratory tract infections and found significant reductions in antibiotic use,93, 96 and one compared it with decision support and found no significant difference.98

One study compared different types of education and reported a significant reduction in total antibiotic use,95 while another compared educational outreach with postal feedback and reported no difference.100 Two studies examined novel ways of guideline dissemination, using text messages90 and quality circles,91 but neither had significant effects.

Three studies reported interventions using behavioural techniques, with two finding significant effects on the targeted prescribing for respiratory tract infections,97, 101 and one finding significant effects in paediatric patients <6 years only but no effect on the general population.99 Finally, one study examined public reporting of primary care antibiotic prescribing and found a significant effect.92

## Discussion

### Principal Findings

This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in community settings found statistically significant reductions in total antibiotic prescribing with the following interventions compared to usual care: educational material (−17.0%); educational workshops (−8.7%); educational outreach (−6.0%); audit and feedback (−2.1%); POCT for antigen detection (−38.2%), and; printed DSS (−10.9%). Multifaceted interventions incorporating education with audit and feedback (−9.9%) and other combinations of interventions (−9.4%) also significantly reduced total antibiotic prescribing by similar magnitudes as single interventions (Figure 3, Table 2). Sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with high risk of bias, had similar findings except that the effects of POCT for inflammatory markers (−31.3%) and computerised DSS (−14.8%) were statistically significant, and printed DSS and multifaceted ‘other’ were no longer statistically significant (Figure S2, Table 2).

### Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of the study include the use of a comprehensive search carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialised Register, aiming to identify all potentially relevant studies. No language restrictions were placed and included studies included low- and middle-income countries. The mean percentage difference in total antibiotic prescribing and the generic inverse variance method was used for meta-analysis because of variability in outcome reporting. In this method, larger studies with smaller standard errors are given greater weight, improving the precision of the effect estimate.

A limitation is the heterogeneity among studies, in trial design, interventions, and outcome measures. Analysis therefore grouped similar intervention types and used random-effects meta-analysis. There was still heterogeneity within groups and some studies being ‘mixed’. Classification of some studies by intervention type required careful consideration and discussion but a dominant intervention could usually be identified for study allocation.

There will be variation in context and implementation across studies but this is not possible to account for in meta-analyses and is a common limitation across any evidence synthesis involving behavioural type interventions.

### Comparison with other studies

All studies from the 2005 Arnold *et al* Cochrane review of primary care stewardship interventions were assessed for eligibility. Of the 40 studies they included, 17 are included and 23 were ineligible, and we included four studies they excluded. Their review included interventions involving printed educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits, audit and feedback, financial and healthcare system changes, physician reminders, patient-based interventions, and multifaceted interventions, with multifaceted interventions the most effective. In our review, multifaceted approaches (categorised as ‘education plus audit and feedback’ and ‘other multifaceted’) were not clearly more effective than single intervention strategies.

The largest effect observed in our review, a -28% reduction in antibiotic use, was with POCT for antigen detection. This intervention was not included in the previous Cochrane review16 and we only identified two studies - both targeting patients with suspected respiratory infections. POCT for inflammatory markers had more included studies. We found a non- significant decrease (−17%) in antibiotic prescribing across all nine, but the effect was significant in sensitivity analysis including four high quality trials (−31%) (Table 2). Four recent systematic reviews examined POCT for inflammatory markers in respiratory tract infections. One included different intervention types in primary care,102 but two that included POCT tests for any inflammatory markers22, 23 each identified 13 studies, with eight overlapping and six of the total combined 18 studies included in our review. Both reported reductions in antibiotic treatment at index consultation with CRP POCT (RR 0.77 [0.69 to 0.86]22 and RR 0.79 [0.70 to 0.90]23), of similar magnitude to our findings. One also reported a reduction (RR 0.81 [0.76 to 0.86])22 at 28 days, but the other reported no difference, and an increase in re-consultation.23 The fourth review, of procalcitonin, found only two of 14 eligible RCTs were in primary care.103 In those two studies (both in our review),33, 74 procalcitonin POCT lowered antibiotic use (OR 0.10 [0.07 to 0.14]). Overall, POCT in primary care stewardship shows promise in trial settings but there has been little (or no) evidence of translation into routine clinical practice.

Educational interventions, most often involving guideline implementation, have been associated with improvements in use and appropriateness of antibiotics in primary care,20 but we found an unexpectedly large effect of printed educational materials (−17% reduction), particularly since workshops (−8.7%) and outreach (−6%) had smaller effects. This large effect contrasts with a recent Cochrane review assessing the effect of printed educational materials on professional practice more generally, which reported that they “probably” improve practice compared to no intervention (median absolute risk difference 0.04 [IQR 0.01 to 0.09]).104 The differences may be contextual and/or reflect that our meta- analysis included only three studies (compared to 16),104 one of which had a very large effect (−37%),31 and two had high risk of bias.28, 29

The small but significant effects of audit and feedback on total antibiotic prescribing in our review (−2% reduction) are consistent with a broader systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback on healthcare professional practice reporting a risk difference of 4.3% (IQR 0.5 to 16) across 49 studies with dichotomous outcomes and percent change of 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%) across 21 studies with continuous outcomes.105

A systematic review of computerised decision support systems (DSS) to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing included non-randomised studies and hospital settings, in addition to RCTs in primary care settings.106 Of 13 RCTs (four included in our review36, 76, 77, 80) only two, in hospitals, were included in their meta-analysis. Similar to our review, they report a non-significant effect favouring DSS (OR 1.24 [0.95 to 1.62]).106 We did, however, find, a significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing (−14.8%, p<0.001) when studies with high risk of bias were excluded (Table 2).

A Cochrane review of 221 studies of antibiotic stewardship in hospital settings included non- randomised studies and clinical and unintended outcomes in addition to prescribing outcomes, and grouped studies for meta-analysis by outcome with meta-regression to estimate the effect of behaviour change functions.19 It reported a 15% (14 to 16) change in the intended direction across 29 RCTs with a prescribing outcome, and that enablement (defined as ‘increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity’), restriction (‘using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour [or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours]’), and targeting antibiotic choice over exposure were significantly associated with greater intervention effect.19 Although not directly comparable to our primary care review, the overall conclusion that most published stewardship interventions are effective, with some variation in effect size by type of intervention, is consistent with our findings.

### Implications for clinicians and policy makers

The evidence synthesised in this review indicates that a wide range of stewardship interventions are effective in reducing antibiotic use in primary care, but defining which intervention component is most effective is complex. With increasingly challenging targets for reductions in antibiotic prescribing in primary care,107 and AMR a high priority,108 there is a need for continued implementation of stewardship interventions. Sustained stewardship programmes in primary care, with sequential interventions and a likely gradual change in prescribing culture, have been effective in reducing total antibiotic prescribing at national level over time,109–112 and more focused interventions can have large effects on the choice of antibiotic prescribed in primary care over shorter time periods.113 Designers of antimicrobial stewardship programmes can choose from a range of likely effective intervention components that are appropriate to their context in terms of local feasibility and acceptability.

### Implications for future research

Further RCTs of single stewardship interventions are unlikely to significantly add to the evidence, given that, overall, all types of intervention were effective in improving antibiotic prescribing. Better designed comparisons between different multifaceted interventions are likely to be more impactful, given the large effects of multifaceted interventions in real- world analyses,113 although we did not observe this effect in the small number of multifaceted trials in this review. Improving study quality and standardising outcome measures would facilitate more informative evidence synthesis to compare interventions.

Pragmatic trials of more real-world implementation are also needed to evaluate interventions such as POCT that are promising in trials but have not been adopted into practice. POCT had the largest effect size in this review, but the meta-analyses included small numbers of studies and practices participating are unlikely to be representative of the wider prescriber population. Previously reported barriers to implementation of POCT in primary care included the impact on staff and workflow, as well as concerns around cost, reliability/quality control and patient perception.114 The widespread use of lateral flow testing in the COVID−19 pandemic may have had an influence on acceptability but concerns about the impact on primary care workflow, with appointments typically less than 10 minutes and an increase in telephone consultations in the UK, are likely to persist. Implementation research in this area should be high priority.

More research is also needed on the effect of stewardship interventions on outcomes other than prescribing.115 Outcomes should include intended outcomes such as reductions in AMR7 and *Clostridioides difficile* infection,116 and unintended consequences of reduced prescribing such as hospital admissions.117 These can all be more challenging to evaluate in relatively small RCT populations, with small numbers of outcomes, than in evaluations of real-world interventions across whole populations. Non-randomised evaluation of the effect of real-world stewardship interventions, including multi-faceted stewardship interventions, on prescribing and other outcomes should be prioritised as they can generate valuable evidence.7, 115–117 However, rigorous evaluation requires more systematic documentation of the components included in real world stewardship interventions.

## Conclusions

Published trials of all types of stewardship interventions in primary care were effective in improving antibiotic prescribing. More pragmatic evaluations of multifaceted interventions and technologies in ‘real-world’ practice could inform the design of future stewardship programmes.

## Contributorship Statement

Virginia Hernandez Santiago (VHS) and Rebecca Andrews (RA) contributed equally to this paper and work.

VHS, BG and CM designed the work. All authors contributed to selection and review of studies for inclusion, and risk of bias assessment. RA and VHS carried out data extraction and meta-analysis, with quality checking and resolution of uncertainty by BG and CM. VHS and RA wrote the first draft of the manuscript with all authors contributing to critical review and writing the final version. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

## Competing interests

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare:

VHS: support from the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government, for funding her time to undertake this work as part of her PhD. Within the past 3 years, funding from the University of St Andrews (employing institution) to fund a PhD project looking at antimicrobial stewardship in primary care out-of-hours and antimicrobial resistance work, and funding from the Chief Scientist Office for COVID−19 research (unrelated work).

BG: funding from National Institute of Health Research and Legal and General PLC to employing institution for unrelated work.

RA: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

CM: RA: no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

## Ethics approval

Not required.

## Transparency statement

VHS, as the guarantor, affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the work reported; that no important aspects have been omitted; with no discrepancies from the study as originally planned.

## Funding

VHS was funded by a Chief Scientist Office Clinical Academic Training (PhD) Fellowship (CAF- 12-07) during this work. The funding body had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The research team undertook this work with independence from funders. All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

## Data Availability

All data are contained within the manuscript, supporting files and references.

## Supporting information

Supplementary Material file which includes:

- Table S1 - Complete Search Strategy

- Table S2 - Cochrane EPOC group risk of bias criteria for RCTs and QRCTs

- Table S3- Deviations from original PROSPERO registration

- Figure S1 - Risk of Bias in Included Studies

- Figure S2 - Forest plots of sensitivity analyses of main intervention effects

*   Received November 20, 2024.
*   Revision received November 20, 2024.
*   Accepted November 23, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Gulland A. World leaders pledge action on antimicrobial resistance. BMJ. 2016;354:i5171.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNTQvc2VwMjJfOC9pNTE3MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzExLzIzLzIwMjQuMTEuMjAuMjQzMTc2ODQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2.WHO. The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance: options for action. Geneva. [http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44812/1/9789241503181\_eng.pdf](http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44812/1/9789241503181_eng.pdf); 2012 (Last accessed 26th July 2017) [
    
    

3.  3.Bell BG, Schellevis F, Stobberingh E, Goossens H, Pringle M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of antibiotic consumption on antibiotic resistance. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:13.
    
    

4.  4.O’neill J Review on antimicrobial resistance:tackling a crisis forthe health and wealth of Nations. 2014. [https://amr-review.org](https://amr-review.org): 1–20.
    
    

5.  5.Collaborators AR. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022;399(10325):629–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02724-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35065702&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

6.  6.Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD. Effect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.
    
    

7.  7.Hernandez-Santiago V, Davey PG, Nathwani D, Marwick CA, Guthrie B. Changes in resistance among coliform bacteraemia associated with a primary care antimicrobial stewardship intervention: A population-based interrupted time series study. PLoS medicine. 2019;16(6):e1002825.
    
    

8.  8.Charani E, Castro-Sanchez E, Sevdalis N, Kyratsis Y, Drumright L, Shah N, et al. Understanding the Determinants of Antimicrobial Prescribing Within Hospitals: The Role of “Prescribing Etiquette”. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2013;57(2):188–96.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cit212&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23572483&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

9.  9.Wood F, Phillips C, Brookes-Howell L, Hood K, Verheij T, Coenen S, et al. Primary care clinicians’ perceptions of antibiotic resistance: a multi-country qualitative interview study. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2013;68(1):237–43.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dks338&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22949622&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000312646300037&link_type=ISI) 

10. 10.Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, MacDougall C, Schuetz AN, Septimus EJ, et al. Implementing an Antibiotic Stewardship Program: Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(10):e51–77.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciw118&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27080992&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

11. 11.GOV.UK. Contained and controlled: the UK’s 20-year vision for antimicrobial resistance. 2019.
    
    

12. 12.Organization GWH. Global antimicrobial resistance surveillance system (GLASS) report; early implementation 2016-2017. 2017.
    
    

13. 13.Goossens H, Ferech M, Vander Stichele R, Elseviers M. Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a cross-national database study. Lancet. 2005;365(9459):579–87.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17907-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15708101&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226984300030&link_type=ISI) 

14. 14.Mobilizing political will to contain resistance. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2011;89:168–169. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.030311.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2471/BLT.11.030311&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21379411&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

15. 15.Price L, Gozdzielewska L, Young M, Smith F, MacDonald J, McParland J, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the public’s antimicrobial resistance awareness and behaviours associated with prudent use of antimicrobials: a systematic review. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2018;73(6):1464–78.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dky076&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29554263&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

16. 16.Arnold SR, Straus SE. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in ambulatory care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(4):CD003539.
    
    

17. 17.England PH. Behaviour change and antibiotic prescribing in healthcare settings: Literature review and behavioural analysis. 2015.
    
    

18. 18.Lam TT, Dang DA, Tran HH, Do DV, Le H, Negin J, et al. What are the most effective community-based antimicrobial stewardship interventions in low- and middle-income countries? A narrative review. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2021;76(5):1117–29.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkaa556&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33491090&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

19. 19.Davey P, Marwick CA, Scott CL, Charani E, McNeil K, Brown E, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):Cd003543.
    
    

20. 20.Rocha V, Estrela M, Neto V, Roque F, Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT. Educational Interventions to Reduce Prescription and Dispensing of Antibiotics in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Economic Impact. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;11(9).
    
    

21. 21.Satterfield J, Miesner AR, Percival KM. The role of education in antimicrobial stewardship. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2020;105(2):130–41.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32243953&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

22. 22.Smedemark SA, Aabenhus R, Llor C, Fournaise A, Olsen O, Jørgensen KJ. Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;10(10):Cd010130.
    
    

23. 23.Martínez-González NA, Keizer E, Plate A, Coenen S, Valeri F, Verbakel JYJ, et al. Point- of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. 2020;9(9):610.
    
    

24. 24.Hernandez-Santiago V MC, Guthrie B, Davey P, Brown E. Interventions for improving antimicrobial prescribing in the community: a systematic review. PROSPERO. 2014(CRD42014010160).
    
    

25. 25.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2010;8.
    
    

26. 26.Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Taxonomy; 2015. Available at: [https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy](https://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy).
    
    

27. 27.Higgins JG, Sally. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0 2011 [[https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/front\_page.htm](https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/front_page.htm).
    
    

28. 28.Angunawela II DV, Tomson G. Experimental evaluation of the effects of drug information on antibiotic prescribing: a study in outpatient care in an area of Sri lanka. Int J Epidemiol. 1991;1991/06/01(2):558-64.
    
    

29. 29.Cohen R AFA, Callens A, Menn S, Urbinelli R, Roden A. . Medico-economic evaluation of an educational intervention to optimize children uncomplicated nasopharyngitis treatment in ambulatory care. Med Mal Infect. 2000;30:691–8.
    
    

30. 30.Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". The New England journal of medicine. 1983;308(24):1457–63.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJM198306163082406&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6406886&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1983QU08100006&link_type=ISI) 

31. 31.Wei X, Zhang Z, Walley JD, Hicks JP, Zeng J, Deng S, et al. Effect of a training and educational intervention for physicians and caregivers on antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in children at primary care facilities in rural China: a cluster- randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Global health. 2017;5(12):e1258–e67.
    
    

32. 32.Arnold SH, Nygaard Jensen J, Bjerrum L, Siersma V, Winther Bang C, Brostrøm Kousgaard M, et al. Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to reduce antibiotics for urinary tract infections in nursing home residents: a cluster, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021;21(11):1549–56.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00001-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34303417&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

33. 33.Briel M LW, Tschudi P, Young J, Hugenschmidt C, Bucher HC. Communication training and antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infections. A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2006;136(15−16):241–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16708309&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

34. 34.Santoso B, Suryawati S, Prawaitasari JE. Small group intervention vs formal seminar for improving appropriate drug use. Social science & medicine (1982). 1996;42(8):1163–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8737434&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

35. 35.Zwar NA, Gordon JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. Evaluation of an educational program in rational prescribing for GP trainees. Aust Fam Physician. 1995;24(5):833–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=7794146&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

36. 36.Bexell A LE, von Hofsten B, Tembo W, Eriksson B, Diwan VK. . Improving drug use through continuing education: a randomized controlled trial in Zambia. J Clin Epidemiology. 1996;49:355–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0895-4356(95)00059-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8676185&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1996UF86900014&link_type=ISI) 

37. 37.Cals JW, Butler CC, Hopstaken RM, Hood K, Dinant GJ. 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.
    
    

38. 38.Le Corvoisier P, Renard V, Roudot-Thoraval F, Cazalens T, Veerabudun K, Canoui- Poitrine F, et al. Long-term effects of an educational seminar on antibiotic prescribing by GPs: a randomised controlled trial. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. 2013;63(612):e455–64.
    
    

39. 39.Varonen H, Rautakorpi UM, Nyberg S, Honkanen PO, Klaukka T, Palva E, et al. Implementing guidelines on acute maxillary sinusitis in general practice--a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 2007;24(2):201–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cml074&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17237494&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000246122000014&link_type=ISI) 

40. 40.Veninga CC, Denig P, Zwaagstra R, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Improving drug treatment in general practice. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2000;53(7):762–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00194-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10941955&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000088519500015&link_type=ISI) 

41. 41.Little P, Stuart B, Francis N, Douglas E, Tonkin-Crine S, Anthierens S, et al. Effects of internet-based training on antibiotic prescribing rates for acute respiratory-tract infections: a multinational, cluster, randomised, factorial, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9899):1175–82.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60994-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23915885&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000325209100022&link_type=ISI) 

42. 42.Butler CC, Simpson SA, Dunstan F, Rollnick S, Cohen D, Gillespie D, et al. Effectiveness of multifaceted educational programme to reduce antibiotic dispensing in primary care: practice based randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:d8173.
    
    

43. 43.Lagerlov P LM, Andrew M, Hjortdahl P. Improving doctors’ prescribing behaviour through reflection on guidelines and prescription feedback: a randomised controlled study. Quality in Health Care. 2000;9:159–65.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicWhjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjc6IjkvMy8xNTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

44. 44.Regev-Yochay G, Raz M, Dagan R, Roizin H, Morag B, Hetman S, et al. Reduction in antibiotic use following a cluster randomized controlled multifaceted intervention: the Israeli judicious antibiotic prescription study. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(1):33–41.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/cir272&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21653300&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

45. 45.De Santis G HK, Howard D, Mashford M, Moulds R. Improving the quality of antibiotic prescription patterns in general practice. The role of educational intervention. The Medical Journal of Australia. 1994;160:502–5.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8170427&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1994NH47800012&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Figueiras A, López-Vázquez P, Gonzalez-Gonzalez C, Vázquez-Lago JM, Piñeiro-Lamas M, López-Durán A, et al. Impact of a multifaceted intervention to improve antibiotic prescribing: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2020;9(1):195.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33287881&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

47. 47.Ilett KF, Johnson S, Greenhill G, Mullen L, Brockis J, Golledge CL, et al. Modification of general practitioner prescribing of antibiotics by use of a therapeutics adviser (academic detailer). British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2000;49(2):168–73.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00123.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10671912&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085244200012&link_type=ISI) 

48. 48.McConnell TS, Cushing AH, Bankhurst AD, Healy JL, McIlvenna PA, Skipper BJ. Physician behavior modification using claims data: tetracycline for upper respiratory infection. West J Med. 1982;137(5):448–50.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=6891147&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1982PR45600039&link_type=ISI) 

49. 49.Pagaiya N GP. Primary care nurses using guidelines in Thailand: a randomized controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health. 2005;10(5):471–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-3156.2005.01404.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15860094&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

50. 50.Shrestha N, Samir KC, Baltussen R, Kafle KK, Bishai D, Niessen L. Practical approach to lung health in Nepal: better prescribing and reduction of cost. Trop Med Int Health. 2006;11(5):765–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-3156.2006.01599.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16640631&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000237097800025&link_type=ISI) 

51. 51.Zahlanie Y, Mang NS, Lin K, Hynan LS, Prokesch BC. Improved Antibiotic Prescribing Practices for Respiratory Infections Through Use of Computerized Order Sets and Educational Sessions in Pediatric Clinics. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. 2021;8(2):ofaa601.
    
    

52. 52.Coenen S, Van Royen P, Michiels B, Denekens J. Optimizing antibiotic prescribing for acute cough in general practice: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2004;54(3):661–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkh374&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15282232&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000223944600014&link_type=ISI) 

53. 53.Enriquez-Puga A, Baker R, Paul S, Villoro-Valdes R. Effect of educational outreach on general practice prescribing of antibiotics and antidepressants: a two-year randomised controlled trial. Scandinavian journal of primary health care. 2009;27(4):195–201.
    
    

54. 54.Loeb M, Brazil K, Lohfeld L, McGeer A, Simor A, Stevenson K, et al. Effect of a multifaceted intervention on number of antimicrobial prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections in residents of nursing homes: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005;331(7518):669.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzEvNzUxOC82NjkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

55. 55.Lundborg CS, Wahlstrom R, Oke T, Tomson G, Diwan VK. Influencing prescribing for urinary tract infection and asthma in primary care in Sweden: a randomized controlled trial of an interactive educational intervention. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1999;52(8):801–12.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00036-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10465325&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082062300014&link_type=ISI) 

56. 56.Altiner A, Brockmann S, Sielk M, Wilm S, Wegscheider K, Abholz HH. Reducing antibiotic prescriptions for acute cough by motivating GPs to change their attitudes to communication and empowering patients: a cluster-randomized intervention study. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2007;60(3):638–44.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkm254&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17626023&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000249882200026&link_type=ISI) 

57. 57.Finkelstein JA, Davis RL, Dowell SF, Metlay JP, Soumerai SB, Rifas-Shiman SL, et al. Reducing antibiotic use in children: a randomized trial in 12 practices. Pediatrics. 2001;108(1):1–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.108.1.1&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11433046&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

58. 58.Gjelstad S, Høye S, Straand J, Brekke M, Dalen I, Lindbæk M. Improving antibiotic prescribing in acute respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial from Norwegian general practice (prescription peer academic detailing (Rx-PAD) study). BMJ. 2013;347:f4403.
    
    

59. 59.Curtis HJ, Bacon S, Croker R, Walker AJ, Perera R, Hallsworth M, et al. Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices’ engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care. Family Practice. 2021;38(4):373–80.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cmaa128&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33783497&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

60. 60.Awad AI, Eltayeb IB, Baraka OZ. Changing antibiotics prescribing practices in health centers of Khartoum State, Sudan. European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2006;62(2):135–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00228-005-0089-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16389536&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000236029800009&link_type=ISI) 

61. 61.Hux JE, Melady MP, DeBoer D. Confidential prescriber feedback and education to improve antibiotic use in primary care: a controlled trial. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 1999;161(4):388–92.
    
    

62. 62.Sondergaard J, Andersen M, Stovring H, Kragstrup J. Mailed prescriber feedback in addition to a clinical guideline has no impact: a randomised, controlled trial. Scandinavian journal of primary health care. 2003;21(1):47–51.
    
    

63. 63.Hürlimann D, Limacher A, Schabel M, Zanetti G, Berger C, Mühlemann K, et al. Improvement of antibiotic prescription in outpatient care: a cluster-randomized intervention study using a sentinel surveillance network of physicians. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2015;70(2):602–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dku394&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25326088&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

64. 64.O’Connell DL, Henry D, Tomlins R. Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners’ prescribing in Australia. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):507–11.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMTgvNzE4Mi81MDciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

65. 65.Cohen R, Thollot F, Lécuyer A, Koskas M, Touitou R, Boucherat M, et al. [Impact of the rapid diagnosis downtown in the assumption of responsibility of the children in period of influenza]. Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie. 2007;14(7):926–31.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17482437&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

66. 66.Llor C, Madurell J, Balague-Corbella M, Gomez M, Cots JM. Impact on antibiotic prescription of rapid antigen detection testing in acute pharyngitis in adults: a randomised clinical trial. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. 2011;61(586):e244–51.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21619748&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

67. 67.Worrall G HJ, Sherman G, Griffiths J. Diagnosing streptococcal sore throat in adults. Randomized controlled trial of in-office aids. Can Fam Physician. 2007;53:666–71.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY2ZwIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjUzLzQvNjY2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTEvMjMvMjAyNC4xMS4yMC4yNDMxNzY4NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

68. 68.Andreeva E, Melbye H. Usefulness of C-reactive protein testing in acute cough/respiratory tract infection: an open cluster-randomized clinical trial with C-reactive protein testing in the intervention group. BMC family practice. 2014;15:80.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24886066&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

69. 69.Dahler-Eriksen B LT,  Flensted Lassen J, LundE D, Brandslund I. Near-Patient Test for C- Reactive Protein in General Practice: Assessment of Clinical, Organizational, and Economic Outcomes. Clinical Chemistry. 1999;45(4):478–85.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmNoZW0iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNDUvNC80NzgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

70. 70.Diederichsen HZ, Skamling M, Diederichsen A, Grinsted P, Antonsen S, Petersen PH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of CRP rapid test as a guide to treatment of respiratory infections in general practice. Scandinavian journal of primary health care. 2000;18(1):39–43.
    
    

71. 71.Rebnord IK, Sandvik H, Batman Mjelle A, Hunskaar S. Out-of-hours antibiotic prescription after screening with C reactive protein: a randomised controlled study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5):e011231.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiNi81L2UwMTEyMzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

72. 72.Van den Bruel A, Jones C, Thompson M, Mant D. C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in acutely ill children: a mixed methods study in primary care. Archives of disease in childhood. 2016;101(4):382–5.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTI6ImFyY2hkaXNjaGlsZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDEvNC8zODIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

73. 73.Briel M SP, Mueller B. Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic use vs a standard approach for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care. Archives of internal medicine. 2008;168:2000–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.168.18.2000&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18852401&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259984400009&link_type=ISI) 

74. 74.Burkhardt O, Ewig S, Haagen U, Giersdorf S, Hartmann O, Wegscheider K, et al. Procalcitonin guidance and reduction of antibiotic use in acute respiratory tract infection. The European respiratory journal. 2010;36(3):601–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20185423&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

75. 75.Little P, Hobbs FD, Moore M, Mant D, Williamson I, McNulty C, et al. Clinical score and rapid antigen detection test to guide antibiotic use for sore throats: randomised controlled trial of PRISM (primary care streptococcal management). BMJ. 2013;347:f5806.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDcvb2N0MTBfMy9mNTgwNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzExLzIzLzIwMjQuMTEuMjAuMjQzMTc2ODQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

76. 76.Christakis DA ZF, Wright JA, Garrison MM, Rivara FP, Davis RL. . A randomized controlled trial of point-of-care evidence to improve the antibiotic prescribing practices for acute otitis media in children. Paediatrics. 2001;107:e15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.107.2.e15&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11158489&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

77. 77.Linder JA, Schnipper JL, Tsurikova R, Yu T, Volk LA, Melnikas AJ, et al. Documentation-based clinical decision support to improve antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Informatics in primary care. 2009;17(4):231–40.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20359401&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

78. 78.Martens JD, van der Weijden T, Severens JL, de Clercq PA, de Bruijn DP, Kester AD, et al. The effect of computer reminders on GPs’ prescribing behaviour: a cluster-randomised trial. International journal of medical informatics. 2007;76 Suppl 3:S403–16.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.04.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17569575&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000207730900013&link_type=ISI) 

79. 79.Bourgeois FC, Linder J, Johnson SA, Co JP, Fiskio J, Ferris TG. Impact of a computerized template on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in children and adolescents. Clinical pediatrics. 2010;49(10):976–83.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0009922810373649&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20724348&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

80. 80.Gonzales R, Anderer T, McCulloch CE, Maselli JH, Bloom FJ, Jr., Graf TR, et al. A cluster randomized trial of decision support strategies for reducing antibiotic use in acute bronchitis. JAMA internal medicine. 2013;173(4):267–73.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23319069&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

81. 81.Fleet E, Gopal Rao G, Patel B, Cookson B, Charlett A, Bowman C, et al. Impact of implementation of a novel antimicrobial stewardship tool on antibiotic use in nursing homes: a prospective cluster randomized control pilot study. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2014;69(8):2265–73.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dku115&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24777901&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000340068600036&link_type=ISI) 

82. 82.Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks AG, Localio AR, Grundmeier RW, Bell LM, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians: a randomized trial. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2013;309(22):2345–52.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2013.6287&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23757082&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000320176000024&link_type=ISI) 

83. 83.Vellinga A, Galvin S, Duane S, Callan A, Bennett K, Cormican M, et al. Intervention to improve the quality of antimicrobial prescribing for urinary tract infection: a cluster randomized trial. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 2016;188(2):108–15.
    
    

84. 84.Welschen I, Kuyvenhoven MM, Hoes AW, Verheij TJ. Effectiveness of a multiple intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;329(7463):431.
    
    

85. 85.Forrest CB, Fiks AG, Bailey LC, Localio R, Grundmeier RW, Richards T, et al. Improving adherence to otitis media guidelines with clinical decision support and physician feedback. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1071–81.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1542/peds.2012-1988&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23478860&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000318269500004&link_type=ISI) 

86. 86.Keitel K, Samaka J, Masimba J, Temba H, Said Z, Kagoro F, et al. Safety and Efficacy of C-reactive Protein-guided Antibiotic Use to Treat Acute Respiratory Infections in Tanzanian Children: A Planned Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial Evaluating a Novel Electronic Clinical Decision Algorithm (ePOCT). Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(11):1926–34.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciz080&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30715250&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

87. 87.Wilson E ND, Dear K, Douglas R. Changing GPs’ antibiotic prescribing: a randomised controlled trial. Antimicrobial Resistance in Australia. 2003:S32–S8.
    
    

88. 88.Flottorp S OA, Håvelsrud K, Treweek S, Herrin J. Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. BMJ. 2002;325(367):1–6.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzMjUvNzM1NC8xIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMTEvMjMvMjAyNC4xMS4yMC4yNDMxNzY4NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

89. 89.Samore M BK, Alder S, Hannah E, et al. . Clinical decision support and appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. A randomized trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2005;294:2305–14.
    
    

90. 90.Chen Y, Yang K, Jing T, Tian J, Shen X, Xie C, et al. Use of text messages to communicate clinical recommendations to health workers in rural China: a cluster- randomized trial. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2014;92(7):474–81.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25110372&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

91. 91.van Driel ML, Coenen S, Dirven K, Lobbestael J, Janssens I, Van Royen P, et al. What is the role of quality circles in strategies to optimise antibiotic prescribing? A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in primary care. Quality & safety in health care. 2007;16(3):197–202.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17545346&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

92. 92.Yang L, Liu C, Wang L, Yin X, Zhang X. Public reporting improves antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections in primary care: a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial in China. Health research policy and systems. 2014;12:61.
    
    

93. 93.Arroll B KT, Kerse N. Do delayed prescriptions reduce the use of antibiotics for the common cold?: a singleblind controlled trial. Journal of Family Practice. 2002;51:324–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11978254&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

94. 94.Cals JW, de Bock L, Beckers PJ, Francis NA, Hopstaken RM, Hood K, et al. Enhanced communication skills and C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for respiratory tract infection: 3.5-year follow-up of a cluster randomized trial. Annals of family medicine. 2013;11(2):157–64.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiYW5uYWxzZm0iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTEvMi8xNTciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8xMS8yMy8yMDI0LjExLjIwLjI0MzE3Njg0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

95. 95. Chazan Bea. Antibiotic consumption successfully reduced by a community intervention program. Israel Medical Association Journal: Imaj. 2007;9(1):16–20.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17274349&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

96. 96.Dowell J PM, Bain J and Martin S. A randomised controlled trial of delayed antibiotic prescribing as a strategy for managing uncomplicated respiratory tract infection in primary care. BJGP. 2001;51:200–5.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11255901&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

97. 97.Francis NA, Butler CC, Hood K, Simpson S, Wood F, Nuttall J. Effect of using an interactive booklet about childhood respiratory tract infections in primary care consultations on reconsulting and antibiotic prescribing: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b2885.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzMzkvanVsMjlfMi9iMjg4NSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzExLzIzLzIwMjQuMTEuMjAuMjQzMTc2ODQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

98. 98.Little P, Moore M, Kelly J, Williamson I, Leydon G, McDermott L, et al. Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies for respiratory tract infections in primary care: pragmatic, factorial, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g1606.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNDgvbWFyMDVfNC9nMTYwNiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzExLzIzLzIwMjQuMTEuMjAuMjQzMTc2ODQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

99. 99.Milos V, Jakobsson U, Westerlund T, Melander E, Molstad S, Midlov P. Theory-based interventions to reduce prescription of antibiotics--a randomized controlled trial in Sweden. Fam Pract. 2013;30(6):634–40.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/fampra/cmt043&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23960104&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

100.100.Naughton C, Feely J, Bennett K. A RCT evaluating the effectiveness and cost- effectiveness of academic detailing versus postal prescribing feedback in changing GP antibiotic prescribing. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2009;15(5):807–12.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01099.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19811593&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270179900006&link_type=ISI) 

101.101.Meeker D, Knight TK, Friedberg MW, Linder JA, Goldstein NJ, Fox CR, et al. Nudging guideline-concordant antibiotic prescribing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA internal medicine. 2014;174(3):425–31.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24474434&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

102.102.Tonkin-Crine SK, Tan PS, van Hecke O, Wang K, Roberts NW, McCullough A, et al. Clinician-targeted interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections in primary care: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9(9):Cd012252.
    
    

103.103.Schuetz P, Müller B, Christ-Crain M, Stolz D, Tamm M, Bouadma L, et al. Procalcitonin to initiate or discontinue antibiotics in acute respiratory tract infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2012(9):Cd007498.
    
    

104.104.Giguère A, Légaré F, Grimshaw J, Turcotte S, Fiander M, Grudniewicz A, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10(10):Cd004398.
    
    

105.105.Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):Cd000259.
    
    

106.106.Laka M, Milazzo A, Merlin T. Can evidence-based decision support tools transform antibiotic management? A systematic review and meta-analyses. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2020;75(5):1099–111.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31960021&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

107.107.Department of Health and Social Care. UK 5-year action plan for antimicrobial resistance 2019 to 2024. 2019:53.
    
    

108.108.(WHO) TWHO. The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance: options for action. Geneva 2012 [[http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44812/1/9789241503181_eng.pdf](http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44812/1/9789241503181_eng.pdf).
    
    

109.109.Agency UHS. English surveillance programme for antimicrobial utilisation and resistance (ESPAUR) report 2014 [[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-surveillance-programme-antimicrobial-utilisation-and-resistance-espaur-report](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-surveillance-programme-antimicrobial-utilisation-and-resistance-espaur-report).
    
    

110.110.Antimicrobial Resistance and Health Associated Infection Scotland (ARHAI). Scottish One Health Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance in 2020. 2021.
    
    

111.111.Thomson K, Berry R, Robinson T, Brown H, Bambra C, Todd A. An examination of trends in antibiotic prescribing in primary care and the association with area-level deprivation in England. BMC public health. 2020;20(1):1148.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-020-09227-x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32741362&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

112.112.Devine P, O’Kane M, Bucholc M. Trends, Variation, and Factors Influencing Antibiotic Prescribing: A Longitudinal Study in Primary Care Using a Multilevel Modelling Approach. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;11(1).
    
    

113.113.Hernandez-Santiago V, Marwick CA, Patton A, Davey PG, Donnan PT, Guthrie B. Time series analysis of the impact of an intervention in Tayside, Scotland to reduce primary care broad-spectrum antimicrobial use. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2015;70(8):2397–404.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/jac/dkv095&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25953807&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

114.114.Hardy V, Thompson M, Alto W, Keppel GA, Hornecker J, Linares A, et al. Exploring the barriers and facilitators to use of point of care tests in family medicine clinics in the United States. BMC family practice. 2016;17(1):149.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27809865&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

115.115.Toma M, Davey PG, Marwick CA, Guthrie B. A framework for ensuring a balanced accounting of the impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2017;72(12):3223–31.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28961725&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

116.116.Patton A, Davey P, Harbarth S, Nathwani D, Sneddon J, Marwick CA. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship interventions on Clostridium difficile infection and clinical outcomes: segmented regression analyses. The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy. 2018;73(2):517–26.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29177477&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom) 

117.117.Guthrie I, Malcolm W, Nogueira R, Sneddon J, Seaton RA, Marwick CA. Associations between declining antibiotic use in primary care in Scotland and hospitalization with infection and patient satisfaction: longitudinal population study. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2022;77(9):2561–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=35748617&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F11%2F23%2F2024.11.20.24317684.atom)