Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jul 31;18(7):e0280096. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280096

A cluster randomized trial assessing the impact of personalized prescribing feedback on antibiotic prescribing for uncomplicated acute cystitis to family physicians

Greg Carney 1,2,*, Malcolm Maclure 1,2, David M Patrick 3,4, Anat Fisher 1,2, Dana Stanley 1,2, Ken Bassett 1,2,5, Colin R Dormuth 1,2
Editor: Giuseppe Vittorio De Socio6
PMCID: PMC10389722  PMID: 37523381

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the impact of personalized prescribing portraits on antibiotic prescribing for treating uncomplicated acute cystitis (UAC) by Family Physicians (FPs).

Design

Cluster randomized control trial.

Setting

The intervention was conducted in the primary care setting in the province of BC between December 2010 and February 2012.

Participants

We randomized 4 833 FPs by geographic location into an Early intervention arm (n = 2 417) and a Delayed control arm (n = 2 416).

Intervention

The Education for Quality Improvement in Patient Care (EQIP) program mailed to each FP in BC, a ‘portrait’ of their individual prescribing of antibiotics to women with UAC, plus therapeutic recommendations and a chart of trends in antibiotic resistance.

Main outcome measures

Antibiotic prescribing preference to treat UAC.

Results

Implementing exclusion criteria before and after a data system change in the Ministry of Health caused the arms to be unequal in size–intervention arm (1 026 FPs, 17 637 UAC cases); control arm (1 352 FPs, 25 566 UAC cases)–but they were well balanced by age, sex and prior rates of prescribing antibiotics for UAC. In the early intervention group probability of prescribing nitrofurantoin increased from 28% in 2010 to 38% in 2011, a difference of 9.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1% to 10.7. Ciprofloxacin decreased by 6.2% (95% CI: 5.6% to 6.9%) and TMP-SMX by 3.7% (95% CI: 3.1% to 4.2%). Among 295 FPs who completed reflective surveys, 52% said they were surprized by the E. coli resistance statistics and 57% said they planned to change their treatment of UAC.

Conclusion

The EQIP intervention demonstrated that feedback of personal data to FPs on their prescribing, plus population data on antibiotic resistance, with a simple therapeutic recommendation, can significantly improve prescribing of antibiotics.

Trial registration: ISRCTN 16938907.

Introduction

Indicators show that infections caused by antimicrobial resistant organisms continue to increase in Canada [1], and that while antimicrobial stewardship programs reduced the prescriptions for children, the quality of antibiotic prescribing for adults remained suboptimal [24]. Continued efforts to preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobials to treat infectious disease is essential since misuse of antimicrobials is the primary mechanism driving resistance [58]. The treatment of cystitis is one indication where a change in antibiotic use was necessary. Uncomplicated acute cystitis (UAC) is the most prevalent form of urinary tract infection in women, and is most commonly caused by Escherichia coli (E. coli) [9, 10]. UAC is a common indication for antimicrobial treatment in healthy, non-pregnant women [11, 12]. E. coli resistance to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and fluoroquinolones, historically the antibiotics most often used for UAC, exceeded 20% in all areas of British Columbia by 2012. Due to increased resistance, Nitrofurantoin treatment of infections caused by E. coli is now considered the treatment best supported by evidence [13].

In 2010, as part of a collaboration between the British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Health and the BC Medical Association, an initiative known as Education for Quality Improvement of Patient care (EQIP) mailed family physicians (FPs) confidential feedback portraits of their individual prescribing of antibiotics for UAC. In 2012, after the portrait was distributed, the Ministry abruptly terminated the EQIP initiative and access to the original EQIP data [14]. In 2019, under new leadership and based on a report from the BC Ombudsperson, the Ministry decided to support a re-launch of the program, and restored access to original EQIP data. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of personalized feedback portraits on the treatment of UAC, and to assess physician attitudes towards the EQIP program. Prior to this evaluation and based on similar audit and feedback initiatives [15, 16], we predicted the most likely impact of the portrait would be a 5–10% increase in the use of nitrofurantoin and a proportional decrease in the use of ciprofloxacin and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX).

Methods

Study design and setting

The intervention was conducted in the primary care setting in the province of BC between December 2010 and February 2012. FPs were identified through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia registrant directory containing public information on individuals currently registered and licensed with the College. The EQIP portrait was a cluster randomized control trial. The unit of randomization was the practice community (n = 116). Pairs were matched based by size and rural vs urban location using the same method used in a prior cluster randomized control trial [17]. We assigned half of FPs (n = 2 416) based on the community where they practiced to receive the portrait with a one-year delay, who would provide the assumed counterfactual experience for the FP group who received the portrait early (n = 2 417). Prior to the portrait intervention, a registration package was sent to all family physician’s in the province announcing the EQIP program and providing them an opportunity to opt out of the initiative and its evaluation by contacting the EQIP office. The study protocol was approved by the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board (UBC CREB number H20-00337). The ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. The trial is registered in ISRCTN (application 16938907) with a publicly available evaluation protocol [18]. The trial was not prospectively registered as individual recruitment was not involved and the evaluation used secondary fully anonymized administrative data.

Randomization

Active FPs during 2009 in the province were eligible to receive the UAC portrait intervention. Physicians were included in the study if they met all of the following criteria: did not opt out of the program via their registration package; had evidence of medical practice in the form of Medical Services Plan billings in the most recent quarter of data available; were available in the BC Ministry of Health database with a valid, encrypted, and linkable MSP billing number; and were categorized as a ‘Private Practice General Practitioner” in the MSP Registration & Billing information system. Pairs of practice community locations were randomized into two groups using a random number generator. Blind to this allocation, the EQIP Working Group Chair flipped a coin to determine which group received the early intervention and which received the delayed intervention. Physicians in both groups who had zero patients diagnosed with a UAC in the prior year, resulting in an empty prescribing graph on the portrait, were sent a sample portrait with the delayed mailing, but excluded from the evaluation.

Personalized portrait intervention

An interdisciplinary team with expertise in antimicrobial resistance, infection disease, primary care, pharmacoepidemiology, and public health developed an educational portrait aimed to improve the quality of antimicrobial prescribing for UAC in primary care. The EQIP UAC portrait (S1 File) contained individualized physician prescribing data with evidence-based messages based on E.coli resistance rates published by the BC Centre for Disease Control. The key message stated that, “Nitrofurantoin is now the first-line treatment for uncomplicated acute cystitis”. Physicians were sent a registration package several months before the portraits were mailed. The registration packages contained an information letter about the EQIP program and provided the physicians with the opportunity to opt out of the EQIP project. An article was published in the BC Medical Journal in November 2010 informing family physicians they would soon receive a confidential portrait of their prescribing of antibiotics for urinary tract infections [19]. The early intervention group received their personalized EQIP portraits by mail on December 03, 2010, and again on February 28, 2011. The delayed control group physicians were mailed their personalized EQIP portraits on February 10, 2012. The delayed control group physicians were also invited to complete a reflective activity form (S3 File) in exchange for continuing medical education credit.

The EQIP portrait was a two-page personalized colour document containing: 1) a vignette describing a common clinical encounter, 2) E. coli resistance rates for ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, and TMP-SMX in BC patients which supported nitrofurantoin as first line therapy, 3) a horizontal bar graph depicting each physician’s personalized first-line prescribing for cystitis in the prior year compared with the B.C. average and the evidence based target, and 4) references and a detailed explanation of how the portrait was developed. The prescribing data was developed using prescription dispensing records, family physician visits, hospital discharge records, and patient and physician demographic information. The portraits were generated using PL/SQL Developer (Allround Automations, The Netherlands), SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC), and iReport Designer (Jaspersoft, Palo Alto, CA).

Databases

Prescription records were obtained from a linked administrative database at the BC Ministry of Health. The database contains records of all prescriptions dispensed at community pharmacies with the exception of patients who were federally insured at the time (e.g., Veterans, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and First Nations and Indigenous People). The prescription records were linked to physician services and hospitalizations using anonymous client identifiers. The physician and hospital databases contained diagnostic codes (International Classification of Disease (ICD) 9th revision for physician services diagnosis, and ICD 10th revision for hospital diagnosis). Data was available from April 2006 to February 2013, providing up to four years of prior medical history for the identification of patient exclusion (comorbid) conditions, and for 12 months for follow-up of portrait impact after the initial intervention mailing date.

Prescribing endpoints

Women with visits indicating UAC were identified from MSP billing records in which the first 3 digits of the ICD-9 diagnosis code in the record indicated 595. These UAC patients were then categorized according to whether they received antibiotic treatment on or within 3 days of the physician office visit. The primary endpoint was incident use of nitrofurantoin in the 3-day period following a diagnosis of UAC. Secondary outcomes were incident ciprofloxacin, TMP-SMX, other antibiotics, or no treatment, in the 3-day period following diagnosis. Patient visits were excluded if one of the following complicating factors were identified: abnormalities of the genitourinary tract, pregnancy, impaired renal function, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, recurrent urinary tract infection, or diabetes (S2 File). In addition, FPs were asked to complete a reflective survey (S3 File) where they were asked their opinions about the accuracy of their prescribing data, information sources of bacterial resistance rates, evidence and guidelines, and if they planned to change how they treat UAC.

Statistical analysis

We measured the percentages of women coded with UAC who received any antibiotic during the 12-month post-intervention window (Dec 3, 2010 to Dec 3, 2011) in the Early and Delayed arm, as well as the FPs’ preferences for each type of antibiotic. We compared the preferences both by calculating differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and by estimating preference odds ratios (OR) via logistic regressions in which the ratio of change in the intervention group between the pre-intervention period to the post-intervention period was compared to the same ratio of change (or non-change) in the delayed control group [17]. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate the preference odds ratio confidence intervals, adjusting for clustering of patients using an independent correlation structure. We included pre-intervention data to adjust for any non-random imbalances in group treatment preferences at baseline resulting from re-construction and re-execution of the algorithm for exclusions that was necessitated by the Ministry’s data system change. As a secondary analysis, we examined the duration of impact by charting the preferences in the pair of 3-month windows immediately pre and post, and the adjacent pair of 9-months windows (4–12 months pre and post).

Results

Physician demographics

The target population was 4,832 family physicians from British Columbia. 2,416 physicians did not meet the eligibility criteria, and 39 physicians opted out of the program (Fig 1). After re-construction and re-execution of the algorithm for exclusions, the early intervention arm consisted of 1,026 FPs and 17 637 UAC cases (some patients more than once), and the delayed control arm consisted of 1,352 FPs and 25 566 UAC cases. A comparison of physician characteristics between the arms is shown in Table 1. The balance by physician age and sex was better than the balance by geographic region, reflecting the fact that the unit of randomization was small geographic areas, some of which contain many FPs. Despite some geographic imbalance, the balance of preferences for the different types of antibiotics in the year before the intervention was remarkably good.

Fig 1. Study physician flow diagram.

Fig 1

Table 1. Physician characteristics.

Physician Characteristics Early Intervention Group Delayed Control Group
Family physicians (n) 1026   1352  
Female (n, %) 340 33.1% 482 35.7%
Age as of Dec 03, 2010 (mean, IQR) 54.6 [47.4–61.5] 51.1 [43.7–58.2]
Age < 30, % 0 0.0% 4 0.3%
Age 30–39, % 48 4.7% 224 16.6%
Age 40–49, % 300 29.2% 409 30.3%
Age 50–59, % 363 35.4% 433 32.0%
Age 60–69, % 262 25.5% 245 18.1%
Age ≥ 70, % 53 5.2% 37 2.7%
Years since graduation as of Dec 03, 2010 (mean, sd) 27.5 9.8 23.7 10.7
Geographical Distribution by Health Authority        
01-Interior 143 13.9% 291 21.5%
02-Fraser 277 27.0% 327 24.2%
03-Vancouver Coastal 305 29.7% 375 27.7%
04-Island Health 247 24.1% 271 20.0%
05-Northern 47 4.6% 59 4.4%
Unknown 7 0.7% 29 2.1%
Total UAC patients, 12 months pre-intervention 23 730   33 640  
Prescriptions for pre-intervention UAC patients        
    Nitrofurantoin 6 267 26.4% 8 806 26.2%
    Ciprofloxacin 5 565 23.5% 7 953 23.6%
    TMP-SMX 2 994 12.6% 4 609 13.7%
    Other antibiotic 1 118 4.7% 1 650 4.9%
    No antibiotic 7 786 32.8% 10 622 31.6%

Primary and secondary outcomes

Tables 2 and 3 show the prescribing preference differences for UAC treatment, the mean preferences, and the preference odds ratios in the 12-month and 3-month windows pre and post intervention. Fig 2 shows the trends in preferences. Preferences in the pre-intervention windows were essentially identical in the early intervention and delayed control arms. In the post-intervention window, preferences were strikingly different. The 95% confidence intervals are mostly non-overlapping despite being very conservative: by assuming a high degree of clustering within a FP’s practice, n for sample size is set at the number of exposed FPs (1 026) rather than the number of exposed patients (17 637).

Table 2. Prescribing outcomes, 12 months pre and post intervention.

Intervention Physicians Delayed Control Physicians
1-Year Pre Intervention 1-Year Post Intervention 1-Year Pre Intervention 1-Year Post Intervention
Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Preference Difference Preference Difference 95% CI Preference Odds Ratio Preference Odds Ratio 95% CI
Nitrofurantoin 6267 26% 8935 38% 8806 26% 9511 28% 9.9% 9.1% 10.7% 1.57 1.43 1.71
Ciprofloxacin 5565 23% 3894 38% 7953 24% 7701 23% -6.2% -6.9% -5.6% 0.67 0.52 0.83
TMP-SMX 2994 13% 2068 17% 4609 14% 4205 12% -3.7% -4.2% -3.1% 0.68 0.50 0.86
Other 1118 5% 938 9% 1650 5% 1502 4% -0.5% -0.8% -0.1% 0.89 0.63 1.16
No Treatment 7786 33% 7611 4% 10622 32% 10799 32% 0.4% -0.3% 1.2% 1.02 0.92 1.12
Total Episodes 23730 23446 32% 33640 33718

Table 3. Prescribing outcomes, 3 months pre and post intervention.

Intervention Physicians Delayed Control Physicians
1-Year Pre Intervention 1-Year Post Intervention 1-Year Pre Intervention 1-Year Post Intervention
Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Prescriptions Preference Preference Difference Preference Difference 95% CI Preference Odds Ratio Preference Odds Ratio 95% CI
Nitrofurantoin 1730 27% 1994 34% 2500 27% 2252 28% 6.7% 5.1% 8.3% 1.37 1.20 1.54
Ciprofloxacin 1454 23% 1023 18% 2196 24% 1835 23% -4.9% -6.2% -3.6% 0.74 0.56 0.91
TMP-SMX 780 12% 602 10% 1173 13% 1099 13% -3.1% -4.2% -2.0% 0.74 0.54 0.94
Other 272 4% 246 4% 424 5% 384 5% -0.5% -1.2% 0.2% 0.89 0.59 1.20
No Treatment 2103 33% 1944 33% 2876 31% 2582 32% 1.8% 0.2% 3.4% 1.09 0.97 1.20
Total Episodes 6339 5809 9169 8152

Fig 2. Trends in preferences.

Fig 2

a: Monthly antibiotic preference trends assuming zero clustering, b: Monthly antibiotic preference trends assuming 100% clustering.

Logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of patients by physician, showed the preference odds for a nitrofurantoin prescription following a UAC diagnosis increased by 57% in the 12 months after the intervention (relative risk (RR) = 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.43–1.71). The increase in nitrofurantoin preference was offset by a 33% decrease in treatment with ciprofloxacin (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52–0.83) and a 32% decrease in TMP-SMX (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50–0.86). The intervention was not associated with a change in treatment with other antibiotics or a change in UAC followed by no treatment. The 3 month pre-and-post intervention sensitivity analysis yielded similar results. The intervention was associated with a 37% increase in nitrofurantoin prescribing (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.20–1.54) in the early physician group relative to the delayed group. Likewise, both ciprofloxacin and TMP-SMX were associated with a 26% decrease in treatment (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56–0.91) and (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.54–0.94), respectively.

Physician feedback

There were 295 physicians who completed and returned a reflective activity form (Table 4) in exchange for continuing medical education credit. Of the 286 physicians who reported the number of years since graduating medical school, the average was 24.8 years (standard deviation = 10.8). Physicians reported their place of practice as: 243 (82%) in a family practice office or clinic, 95 (32%) in a walk-in clinic, 60 (20%) in a long-term care facility, 53 (18%) in a teaching setting, 11 (4%) in a sessional clinic, and 60 (20%) in an “other” setting. Physicians were able to select more than one place of practice.

Table 4. Physician reflective survey results.

  Survey Questions Total Responses, n = 295
  n %
Do you think that your prescribing data accurately reflect your first-line prescribing for cystitis (based on MSP code 595)?
  Yes 222 75%
  No 64 22%
  No Response 9 3%
Were you surprised by the rates of E. coli resistance to ciprofloxacin, TMP-SMX, and nitrofurantoin?
  Yes 153 52%
  No 136 46%
  No Response 7 2%
With regards to all of the information in this portrait, please check all of the following that apply to you. Provide an explanation if you feel it is necessary.    
  I learned something new 169 57%
  I am motivated to learn more 126 43%
  This information confirmed I did (am doing) the right thing 133 45%
  I am reassured 105 36%
  I am reminded of something I already knew 107 36%
  I am dissatisfied 4 1%
  There is a problem with this information 23 8%
  I disagree with the content of this information 4 1%
  I think this information is potentially harmful 1 0%
  This information has no impact at all on me or my practice 5 2%
What sources do you regularly use for information on bacterial resistance and updated antimicrobial guidelines?
  Laboratory or hospital reports 106 36%
  British Columbia Ministry of Health or provincial Health Authority reports 56 19%
  Continuing Medical Education courses, conferences, or academic detailing 50 17%
  Medical journal articles 46 16%
  British Columbia Center for Disease Control, Do Bugs Need Drugs program 43 15%
  Uptodate.com 34 12%
  Sanford Guide 26 9%
  Colleagues 15 5%
  Other sources (BC Medical Association/Doctors of BC, eMedicine, pepid, epocrates, drug reps, pharmacists, practice guidelines) 60 20%
Would you now plan to change your treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis?    
  Yes 168 57%
  No 112 38%
  No Response 15 5%
I work in the following clinical settings (select all that apply):    
  Sessional clinic 11 4%
  Walk-in clinic 95 32%
  Family practice in office/clinic 243 82%
  Long-term care facility 60 20%
  Teaching setting 53 18%
  Not in practice 0 0%
  Other:  
  Locum 9 3%
  Emergency Department 18 6%
  Hospital 28 9%
  Other 12 4%

With regards to all the information in the portrait, 222 (75%) agreed their prescribing data accurately reflected their first-line prescribing for cystitis. 153 (52%) reported being surprised by the rates of E. coli resistance to ciprofloxacin, TMP-SMX, and nitrofurantoin. In addition, 169 (57%) indicated they learned something new, while 133 (45%) reported the information confirmed they were doing the right thing, and 126 (43%) were motivated to learn more. In the section allowing for negative feedback, 23 (8%) physicians believed there was a problem with the information, fewer than 5 physicians reported being generally dissatisfied with the portrait content, and fewer than 5 physicians disagreed with the content of the information.

Discussion

Our study described the impact of a personalized prescribing portrait intervention on antibiotic use for UAC in the primary care setting of BC. The prescribing impact from the UAC portrait was greater than previous portraits implemented by the EQIP initiative [17], and was comparable with similar antimicrobial audit and feedback initiatives [20]. For example, a practitioner education and feedback intervention in California achieved a 71% decrease in ciprofloxacin treatment for UAC (adjusted odds ratio = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.20–0.44) [21]. Another pharmacist-led audit and feedback project in the primary care setting in the state of Michigan was able to improve guideline-concordant prescribing for UTIs from 20% at baseline to a median of 69.2% [22]. Additionally, a Canadian pragmatic randomized trial, focused on reducing antibiotic prescriptions to adults with respiratory and urinary tract infections, demonstrated the ability to make clinically important changes in antibiotic utilization in the primary care setting using educational aids and audit and feedback [23]. Other antimicrobial stewardship interventions for UAC in emergency department settings have also been effective at increasing adherence to guidelines and reductions in fluoroquinolone therapy [24, 25].

FPs were asked to complete a reflective survey where they were asked questions pertaining to the quality of evidence, accuracy of data, and potential for changing their personal treatment decisions for patients with UAC. The responses were overwhelmingly positive, with the majority of physicians indicating they learned something new and described their individual prescribing data as accurate. Less than 2% of the physicians reported being dissatisfied with the content of the portrait. The large sample of physician responses was novel, and offered important feedback and support for the future development of personal prescribing portraits. However, the physicians responding to the survey were not a random sample, and therefore careful interpretation of the results is warranted.

Several government programs in BC have aimed at reducing antimicrobial use, including educational campaigns [26] and academic detailing [27], yet a gap between evidence-based prescribing and observed treatment practice for UAC remains. Several systematic reviews have identified key strategies for developing and implementing educational interventions to improve prescribing practices [2830]. Feedback and comparison of clinical practices is a strategy that can be used to improve compliance with a desired change in clinical behaviour [31, 32]. Clinical performance feedback has been shown to be an effective low-cost intervention in several settings for changing prescribing behaviour [17, 33, 34]. Although systematic reviews have concluded that audit and feedback overall may provide only a small benefit, a review looking at various mailed intervention techniques reported that well-constructed mailed interventions, focusing on a single topic, and providing patient data, have the potential to evoke significant changes in physician prescribing [35]. Specifically, printed educational materials providing moderate-certainty evidence and individualized messages with a specific recommendation are more likely to improve prescribing practice [36, 37], and multifaceted interventions targeting different barriers of practice changes demonstrate more effective changes compared to a single intervention [38].

A systematic review and meta-analysis of audit and feedback interventions calculated an overall adjusted risk difference of 10% improvement in the intervention groups after adjusting for baseline difference [39]. However, audit and feedback trials are difficult to compare against each other due to the heterogeneity of the interventions, making a comparison between any individual intervention and the expected results from a meta-analysis an invalid comparison. A scoping review of 15 pharmacist-led antibiotic stewardship programs in outpatient settings in the United States found there was no consistent methodology in the implementation or outcome of interest of the stewardship programs, making the results difficult to generalize [40]. Investigators have suggested that interventions that do not build upon current methods are unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings [41]. However, the same investigators also acknowledge a lack of understanding of the key mechanisms that contribute to successful impacts in the field of audit and feedback. It is important to continue publishing detailed methods and components of individual audit and feedback interventions and their relative effectiveness. This will enable future studies to better understand the key mechanisms for successful audit and feedback interventions.

Our intervention had several strengths that may have contributed to the high magnitude of impact. First, comprehensive medication dispensing data was used to twice mail up-to-date personalized prescribing charts, with actionable evidence-based prescribing targets, and peer comparison, to over 2,000 active family physicians. The components of the intervention have been shown to be highly effective [42], and this likely led to a high level of engagement with the key messages of the portrait. Second, the ability to obtain continuing medical education credits by engaging in a short online reflective exercise is also likely to have increased physician engagement. Third, the EQIP program partnered with a well-known and highly credible organization, the BC Centre for Disease Control, and their well-known Do Bugs Need Drugs? program, to develop the key messages and recommended changes in antibiotic prescribing. These recommendations were complemented by clear, concise, non-controversial evidence on antibiotic resistance. A fourth reason which may explain the impact, which is not necessarily a strength of the intervention per se, but rather the selected topic; the prevalence of nitrofurantoin prescribing was much lower than the provincial target at the time of the intervention, allowing opportunity for significant improvement in prescribing changes.

Our study had data limitations that warrant discussion. The use of administrative health claims data is subject to data quality issues. This evaluation relies on the accuracy of diagnosis coding in the MSP database, particularly the use of the ICD-9 code 595 for cystitis. Patient visits for cystitis that were incorrectly coded would not have been included in the evaluation. Another limitation of our study was the randomization of physicians by community. This created baseline geographic imbalances between the intervention and control groups that could be related to antibiotic preference for the treatment of UAC. However, this is very unlikely to explain the magnitude of impact.

Conclusion

Our analysis showed the educational intervention was effective at increasing use of nitrofurantoin and decreasing use of ciprofloxacin and TMP-SMX for treatment of uncomplicated acute cystitis. This intervention demonstrated that high quality educational interventions with clearly stated recommendations for action, supported by robust evidence and individualize prescribing pattern comparisons, have the potential to significantly change family physician prescribing patterns in the primary care setting. Physician feedback was overwhelmingly positive towards the quality of evidence and accuracy of data, with over half indicating they learned something new. Further educational interventions with well documented methods will assist future studies identify key factors that improve evidence-based prescribing changes.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S1 File. Uncomplicated acute cystitis sample portrait.

(PDF)

S2 File. Cystitis complicating factors, case definitions.

(PDF)

S3 File. Continuing Medical Education credit reflective exercise.

(PDF)

S4 File. Minimum data file to support primary outcome.

(XLSX)

S5 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The BC Ministry of Health approved access to and use of BC data for this study. Data sources were as follows (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/conducting-health-research-evaluation/data-access-health-data-central):

• British Columbia Ministry of Health [creator] (2022): Medical Services Plan (MSP) Payment Information File. BC Ministry of Health [publisher]. MOH (2022);

• British Columbia Ministry of Health [creator] (2022): ClaimsHist (PharmaNet). BC Ministry of Health[publisher]. Data Stewardship Committee (2022);

• Canadian Institute for Health Information [creator] (2022): Discharge Abstract Database(Hospital Separations). BC Ministry of Health [publisher]. MOH (2022)

• British Columbia Ministry of Health [creator] (2022): Consolidation File (MSP Registration &Premium Billing). BC Ministry of Health [publisher]. MOH (2022);

Disclaimer: All inferences, opinions, and conclusions drawn in this manuscript are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Data Stewards.

The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered.

Data Availability

A minimal dataset underlying the primary result has been made available as a Supporting Information file. The complete data that support the findings of this study are available from Population Data BC (http://www.popdata.bc.ca/), but restriction apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly available.

Funding Statement

The study was funded through a contribution agreement to the University of British Columbia from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Public Health Agency of Canada. 2020. Canadian antimicrobial resistance surveillance system report–update 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/drugs-health-products/canadian-antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-system-2020-report.html. Accessed July 19, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saatchi A, Yoo JW, Schwartz KL, Silverman M, Morris AM, Patrick DM, et al. Quantifying the Gap between Expected and Actual Rates of Antibiotic Prescribing in British Columbia, Canada. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021. Nov 22;10(11):1428. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10111428 ; PMCID: PMC8615253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McCubbin KD, Anholt RM, de Jong E, Ida JA, Nóbrega DB, Kastelic JP, et al. Knowledge Gaps in the Understanding of Antimicrobial Resistance in Canada. Front Public Health. 2021. Oct 20;9:726484. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.726484 ; PMCID: PMC8582488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Saatchi A, Morris AM, Patrick DM, Mccormack J, Reyes RC, Morehouse P, et al. Outpatient antibiotic use in British Columbia, Canada: reviewing major trends since 2000. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2021. Aug 12;3(3):dlab116. doi: 10.1093/jacamr/dlab116 ; PMCID: PMC8360297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Davies J, Davies D. Origins and evolution of antibiotic resistance. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010. Sep;74(3):417–33. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00016-10 ; PMCID: PMC2937522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ruckert A, Fafard P, Hindmarch S, Morris A, Packer C, Patrick D, et al. Governing antimicrobial resistance: a narrative review of global governance mechanisms. J Public Health Policy. 2020. Dec;41(4):515–528. doi: 10.1057/s41271-020-00248-9 ; PMCID: PMC7479750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Paphitou NI. Antimicrobial resistance: action to combat the rising microbial challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013. Jun;42 Suppl:S25–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.04.007 Epub 2013 May 16. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rudnick W, Science M, Thirion DJG, Abdesselam K, Choi KB, Pelude L, et al. ; Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. Antimicrobial use among adult inpatients at hospital sites within the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program: 2009 to 2016. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2020 Feb 13;9(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13756-020-0684-2 ; PMCID: PMC7020554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li R, Leslie SW. Cystitis. 2021 Feb 10. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021. Jan–. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lala V, Minter DA. Acute Cystitis. 2020 Nov 20. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021. Jan–. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kang CI, Kim J, Park DW, Kim BN, Ha US, Lee SJ, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Antibiotic Treatment of Community-Acquired Urinary Tract Infections. Infect Chemother. 2018. Mar;50(1):67–100. doi: 10.3947/ic.2018.50.1.67 ; PMCID: PMC5895837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, Wullt B, Colgan R, Miller LG, et al. ; Infectious Diseases Society of America; European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis in women: A 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the European Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Clin Infect Dis. 2011. Mar 1;52(5):e103–20. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq257 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gupta K. et al. Short-Course Nitrofurantoin for the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis in Women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(20):2207–2212. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.20.2207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Misfire: The 2012 Ministry of Health Employment Terminations and Matters. 2017. https://bcombudsperson.ca/assets/media/Referral-Report-Misfire.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2023.
  • 15.Herbert CP, Wright JM, Maclure M, Wakefield J, Dormuth C, Brett-MacLean P, et al. Better Prescribing Project: a randomized controlled trial of the impact of case-based educational modules and personal prescribing feedback on prescribing for hypertension in primary care. Fam Pract. 2004. Oct;21(5):575–81. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh515 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wakefield J, Herbert CP, Maclure M, Dormuth C, Wright JM, Legare J, et al. Commitment to change statements can predict actual change in practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003. Spring;23(2):81–93. doi: 10.1002/chp.1340230205 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dormuth CR, Carney G, Taylor S, Bassett K, Maclure M. A randomized trial assessing the impact of a personal printed feedback portrait on statin prescribing in primary care. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2012. Summer;32(3):153–62. doi: 10.1002/chp.21140 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.ISRCTN. Available here: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16938907. Last accessed December 19, 2022.
  • 19.Patrick D, Mackie B, McKay R, Maclure M. Your Irresistible personal portrait: A way to reduce antibiotic resistance? BCMJ, vol. 52, No. 9, November 2010, Page 465. Available here: https://bcmj.org/bccdc/your-irresistible-personal-portrait-way-reduce-antibiotic-resistance. Accessed July 19, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schwartz KL, Ivers N, Langford BJ, Taljaard M, Neish D, Brown KA, et al. Effect of Antibiotic-Prescribing Feedback to High-Volume Primary Care Physicians on Number of Antibiotic Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021. Sep 1;181(9):1165–1173. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2790 ; PMCID: PMC8261687. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Guo RF, Nguyen DL, Park S, Nguyen K, Ko S, Chiu VY, Dickter J, Becker D, Cho P. Practitioner Education and Feedback to Decrease Ciprofloxacin Prescriptions in Patients with Acute Uncomplicated Cystitis. Perm J. 2020;24:18.036. doi: 10.7812/TPP/18.036 Epub 2019 Dec 30. ; PMCID: PMC6972533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Burns KW, Johnson KM, Pham SN, Egwuatu NE, Dumkow LE. Implementing outpatient antimicrobial stewardship in a primary care office through ambulatory care pharmacist-led audit and feedback. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2020 Nov-Dec;60(6):e246–e251. doi: 10.1016/j.japh.2020.08.003 Epub 2020 Aug 26. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.McIsaac W, Kukan S, Huszti E, Szadkowski L, O’Neill B, Virani S, et al. A pragmatic randomized trial of a primary care antimicrobial stewardship intervention in Ontario, Canada. BMC Fam Pract. 2021. Sep 15;22(1):185. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01536-3 ; PMCID: PMC8442308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hecker MT, Fox CJ, Son AH, Cydulka RK, Siff JE, Emerman CL, et al. Effect of a stewardship intervention on adherence to uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis guidelines in an emergency department setting. PLoS One. 2014. Feb 3;9(2):e87899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087899 ; PMCID: PMC3912125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zalmanovich A, Katzir M, Chowers M, Matar A, Rodrig J, Alon D. Improving urinary tract infection treatment through a multifaceted antimicrobial stewardship intervention in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Nov;49:10–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.05.037 Epub 2021 May 18. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.http://www.dobugsneeddrugs.org/educational-resources/. Accessed July 19, 2023.
  • 27.https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-professional-resources/pad-service/completed-pad-topics. Accessed July 19, 2023.
  • 28.Majumdar SR, Soumerai SB. Why most interventions to improve physician prescribing do not seem to work. CMAJ 2003; 169(1):30–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ostini R, Hegney D, Jackson C, Williamson M, Mackson JM, Gurman K et al. Systematic review of interventions to improve prescribing. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43(3):502–513. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Freemantle N, Harvey EL. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000409. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.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. Jun 13;(6):CD000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, van der Veer SN, Ivers N, Francis JJ, et al. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Implement Sci. 2019. Apr 26;14(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0883-5 ; PMCID: PMC6486695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006. Apr 19;(2):CD000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub2 Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Torrente F, Bustin J, Triskier F, Ajzenman N, Tomio A, Mastai R, et al. Effect of a Social Norm Email Feedback Program on the Unnecessary Prescription of Nimodipine in Ambulatory Care of Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020. Dec 1;3(12):e2027082. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27082 ; PMCID: PMC7733153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ho MJ, Venci J. Improving the success of mailed letter intervention programs to influence prescribing behaviors: a review. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012. Oct;18(8):627–49. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2012.18.8.627 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Avorn J, Soumerai SB. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". N Engl J Med. 1983. Jun 16;308(24):1457–63. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198306163082406 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Giguère A, Zomahoun HTV, Carmichael PH, Uwizeye CB, Légaré F, Grimshaw JM, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. Jul 31;8(8):CD004398. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004398.pub4 ; PMCID: PMC8475791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39(8 Suppl 2):II2–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, O’Brien MA, French SD, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2014. Nov;29(11):1534–41. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2913-y ; PMCID: PMC4238192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.St Louis J, Okere AN. Clinical impact of pharmacist-led antibiotic stewardship programs in outpatient settings in the United States: A scoping review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2021. Jul 22;78(15):1426–1437. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxab178 ; PMCID: PMC8083201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ’business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014. Jan 17;9:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-14 ; PMCID: PMC3896824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gude WT, Brown B, van der Veer SN, Colquhoun HL, Ivers NM, Brehaut JC, et al. Clinical performance comparators in audit and feedback: a review of theory and evidence. Implement Sci. 2019. Apr 24;14(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0887-1 ; PMCID: PMC6480497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S1 File. Uncomplicated acute cystitis sample portrait.

(PDF)

S2 File. Cystitis complicating factors, case definitions.

(PDF)

S3 File. Continuing Medical Education credit reflective exercise.

(PDF)

S4 File. Minimum data file to support primary outcome.

(XLSX)

S5 File

(DOCX)

Data Availability Statement

A minimal dataset underlying the primary result has been made available as a Supporting Information file. The complete data that support the findings of this study are available from Population Data BC (http://www.popdata.bc.ca/), but restriction apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly available.


Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES