↓ Skip to main content

Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance (ARena) in German ambulatory care: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sustainable reduction of antibiotic-induced antimicrobial resistance (ARena) in German ambulatory care: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial
Published in
Implementation Science, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0722-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martina Kamradt, Petra Kaufmann-Kolle, Edith Andres, Tonia Brand, Anja Klingenberg, Katharina Glassen, Regina Poß-Doering, Lorenz Uhlmann, Katharina Hees, Dorothea Weber, Andreas Gutscher, Veit Wambach, Joachim Szecsenyi, Michel Wensing

Abstract

Despite many initiatives to enhance the rational use of antibiotics, there remains substantial room for improvement. The overall aim of this study is to optimise the appropriate use of antibiotics in German ambulatory care in patients with acute non-complicated infections (respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis, sinusitis, tonsillitis and otitis media), community-acquired pneumonia and non-complicated cystitis, in order to counter the advancing antimicrobial resistance development. A three-armed cluster randomised trial will be conducted in 14 practice networks in two German federal states (Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia) and an added cohort that reflects standard care. The trial is accompanied by a process evaluation. Each arm will receive a different set of implementation strategies. Arm A receives a standard set, comprising of e-learning on communication with patients and quality circles with data-based feedback for physicians, information campaigns for the public, patient information material and performance-based additional reimbursement. Arm B receives this standard set plus e-learning on communication with patients and quality circles with data-based feedback tailored for non-physician health professionals of the practice team and information material for tablet computers (culture sensitive). Arm C receives the standard set as well as a computerised decision support system and quality circles in local multidisciplinary groups. The study aims to recruit 193 practices which will provide data on 23,934 patients each year (47,867 patients in total). The outcome evaluation is based on claims data and refers to established indicators of the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption Network (ESAC-Net). Primary and secondary outcomes relate to prescribing of antibiotics, which will be analysed in multivariate regression models. The process evaluation is based on interviews with surveys among physicians, non-physician health professionals of the practice team and stakeholders. A patient survey is conducted in one of the study arms. Interview data will be qualitatively analysed using thematic framework analysis. Survey data of physicians, non-physician health professionals of the practice team and patients will use descriptive and exploratory statistics for analysis. The ARena trial will examine the effectiveness of large scale implementation strategies and explore their delivery in routine practice. ISRCTN, ISRCTN58150046 . Registered 24 August 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 8 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 5%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 45 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 48 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,216,955
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,067
of 1,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,198
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#40
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.