The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Alternative approaches to managing respiratory tract infections: a survey of public perceptions

Alternative approaches to managing respiratory tract infections: a survey of public perceptions
Alternative approaches to managing respiratory tract infections: a survey of public perceptions

Aim: to describe public perceptions regarding finger-prick testing, back-up antibiotic prescriptions (BUP), and alternatives to traditional consultations for RTIs, and identify factors associated with favouring these approaches.

 Design and setting: online national survey (HealthWise Wales) with linked primary care health record data. Methods: Survey item response distributions were described. Associations between responses about consultation alternatives, BUP and finger-prick point of care testing, and potential explanatory variables, were explored using logistic regression. 

Results: 8,752 participants completed the survey between 2016 and 2018. 76.7% (3,807/4,966) and 71.2% (3,529/4,953) of respondents with valid responses were in favour of being able to consult with a pharmacist or nurse in their GP surgery, or with a community pharmacist, respectively. 92.8% (8034/8659) of respondents indicated they would be happy to have a finger-prick test to guide antibiotic prescribing, and 31.8% (2746/8646) indicated they would like to be given a BUP if their clinician thought immediate antibiotics were not required. 47.4% (2342/4944) and 42.3% (2095/4949) were in favour of having video and email consultations respectively. Characteristics associated with different response options were identified.

Conclusion: consulting with pharmacists, using electronic communication tools, and finger-prick testing are widely acceptable approaches. BUP was described as acceptable less often and is likely to require greater information and support when used.

Moore, Alex
0fd67fd8-776e-4719-8fcf-cebc616a5c97
Cannings-John, Rebecca
f45c9562-b1d0-4c6d-9c7c-8f27cd3e47cd
Butler, Christopher
8bf4cace-c34a-4b65-838f-29c2be91e434
McNulty, Cliodna
212425d9-06ca-4ef8-9982-1acbd579c8ee
Francis, Nick
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Moore, Alex
0fd67fd8-776e-4719-8fcf-cebc616a5c97
Cannings-John, Rebecca
f45c9562-b1d0-4c6d-9c7c-8f27cd3e47cd
Butler, Christopher
8bf4cace-c34a-4b65-838f-29c2be91e434
McNulty, Cliodna
212425d9-06ca-4ef8-9982-1acbd579c8ee
Francis, Nick
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e

Moore, Alex, Cannings-John, Rebecca, Butler, Christopher, McNulty, Cliodna and Francis, Nick (2020) Alternative approaches to managing respiratory tract infections: a survey of public perceptions. BJGP Open. (doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2020.0124).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Aim: to describe public perceptions regarding finger-prick testing, back-up antibiotic prescriptions (BUP), and alternatives to traditional consultations for RTIs, and identify factors associated with favouring these approaches.

 Design and setting: online national survey (HealthWise Wales) with linked primary care health record data. Methods: Survey item response distributions were described. Associations between responses about consultation alternatives, BUP and finger-prick point of care testing, and potential explanatory variables, were explored using logistic regression. 

Results: 8,752 participants completed the survey between 2016 and 2018. 76.7% (3,807/4,966) and 71.2% (3,529/4,953) of respondents with valid responses were in favour of being able to consult with a pharmacist or nurse in their GP surgery, or with a community pharmacist, respectively. 92.8% (8034/8659) of respondents indicated they would be happy to have a finger-prick test to guide antibiotic prescribing, and 31.8% (2746/8646) indicated they would like to be given a BUP if their clinician thought immediate antibiotics were not required. 47.4% (2342/4944) and 42.3% (2095/4949) were in favour of having video and email consultations respectively. Characteristics associated with different response options were identified.

Conclusion: consulting with pharmacists, using electronic communication tools, and finger-prick testing are widely acceptable approaches. BUP was described as acceptable less often and is likely to require greater information and support when used.

Text
BJGPO.2020.0124.full - Accepted Manuscript
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (731kB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 8 December 2020
Additional Information: Copyright © 2020, The Authors.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 445961
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/445961
PURE UUID: 50a4d505-027e-4d3b-8b3d-ca7a0e1bc66e
ORCID for Nick Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Jan 2021 17:31
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:58

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Alex Moore
Author: Rebecca Cannings-John
Author: Christopher Butler
Author: Cliodna McNulty
Author: Nick Francis ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×