Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

  • 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021
  • Project No: 485
  • Funding round: FR19

Inappropriate use of antibiotics continues to contribute to bacteria becoming resistant to treatment. A number of guidance sheets have been developed to help doctors decide when it is appropriate to prescribe antibiotics for respiratory tract infections such as sore throat, but it is not clear if they use these in their decision-making process. Limited evidence suggests doctors may not be familiar with these guidance sheets or prefer to use their own clinical judgement. Our study aims to explore UK doctors’ views and experiences of using these (electronic) guidance sheets for respiratory tract infections. We will interview about 25-30 doctors from a range of urban, rural, large and small practices and with a mix of gender, age and years of experience, over the phone. We will ask them questions about barriers and facilitators of using these sheets during consultations. We will also explore whether uptake varies with years of clinical experience and across practices. The findings of the study will improve our understanding of reasons for using or not using guidance sheets and will allow more acceptable guidance sheets to be developed in the future to encourage more widespread adoption by doctors in practice. This in turn will reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing and resistant bacteria.


Catherine Woods, Beth Stuart, Geraldine Leydon, Mark Lown (Southampton)


Amount awarded: £16 113.00

Projects by themes

We have grouped projects under the five SPCR themes in this document

Evidence synthesis working group

The collaboration will be conducting 18 high impact systematic reviews, under four workstreams.