| Literature DB >> 30189653 |
Carol H J Lee1, Pauline Norris2, Isabelle M Duck3, Chris G Sibley4.
Abstract
Patients' expectations of being prescribed antibiotics can have an important influence on inappropriate prescribing. Therefore, it is important to understand the drivers of patients' antibiotic expectations. The 2015/16 New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study measured sense of entitlement to antibiotics in a nationally representative sample of New Zealanders (n = 13,484). Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statement "If I go to my doctor/GP with a minor illness (e.g., sore throat, cough, runny nose, etc.), I think that I should be prescribed antibiotics by default." Eighty percent of participants showed low feelings of antibiotic entitlement, while 18.5% exhibited moderate and 3.7% high feelings of entitlement. People of ethnic minority, lower socio-economic status, and with diabetes expressed higher expectations of being prescribed antibiotics. This may be partially based on a higher risk of rheumatic fever or other complications. Men, religious people, those with lower educational attainment and self-rated health, but greater psychological distress and feelings of control over their health exhibited higher feelings of antibiotic entitlement. Those high on Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Narcissism, but low on Agreeableness and Openness, also showed greater feelings of entitlement. Our findings help identify key characteristics of those more likely to express inappropriate expectations of antibiotic prescription.Entities:
Keywords: New Zealand; antibiotic entitlement; antibiotic prescription; personality traits
Year: 2018 PMID: 30189653 PMCID: PMC6165134 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics7030082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Frequencies and percentages of participants within each antibiotic entitlement group.
| Group | Frequencies | Percentages | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted ( | Unweighted ( | Weighted | Unweighted | |
|
| 492 | 373 | 3.7% | 2.8% |
| (ratings of 6–7) | ||||
|
| 2489 | 2156 | 18.5% | 16.0% |
| (ratings of 3–5) | ||||
|
| 10483 | 10955 | 77.9% | 81.2% |
| (ratings of 1–2) | ||||
Note: Standard NZAVS sample weighting applied. See methods for details on weighting procedure.
Regression predicting level of entitlement to receiving antibiotic prescriptions by default when visiting their doctor with a minor illness.
|
|
| Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log (income) | −0.095 | 0.018 | −0.131 | −0.060 | −0.074 | −5.325 | 0.000 ** |
| NZ Deprivation (0–10) | 0.008 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.016 | 0.018 | 2.013 | 0.044 * |
| Socio-economic status | −0.004 | 0.001 | −0.005 | −0.002 | −0.042 | −4.267 | 0.000 ** |
| Education (0 low to 10 high) | −0.037 | 0.005 | −0.047 | −0.028 | −0.082 | −7.801 | 0.000 ** |
| Gender (0 women, 1 men) | 0.171 | 0.023 | 0.125 | 0.217 | 0.065 | 7.276 | 0.000 ** |
| Age | −0.002 | 0.001 | −0.004 | 0.000 | −0.018 | −1.652 | 0.099 |
| Māori (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.173 | 0.038 | 0.099 | 0.247 | 0.044 | 4.587 | 0.000 ** |
| Pacific (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.542 | 0.084 | 0.377 | 0.706 | 0.074 | 6.461 | 0.000 ** |
| Asian (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.451 | 0.068 | 0.318 | 0.584 | 0.069 | 6.629 | 0.000 ** |
| Religious (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.149 | 0.021 | 0.107 | 0.191 | 0.058 | 6.965 | 0.000 ** |
| Parent (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.040 | 0.027 | −0.013 | 0.094 | 0.014 | 1.481 | 0.139 |
| Partnered (0 no, 1 yes) | −0.016 | 0.028 | −0.071 | 0.039 | −0.005 | −0.564 | 0.573 |
| Employed (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.007 | 0.029 | −0.050 | 0.064 | 0.002 | 0.236 | 0.813 |
| Urban area (0 rural, 1 urban) | 0.042 | 0.023 | −0.003 | 0.086 | 0.016 | 1.841 | 0.066 |
| Self-rated health | −0.088 | 0.013 | −0.114 | −0.062 | −0.080 | −6.643 | 0.000 ** |
| Health locus of control | 0.054 | 0.012 | 0.031 | 0.077 | 0.046 | 4.584 | 0.000 ** |
| Healthcare access | −0.012 | 0.006 | −0.023 | 0.000 | −0.019 | −1.939 | 0.052 |
| BMI | 0.010 | 0.002 | 0.006 | 0.014 | 0.048 | 4.753 | 0.000 ** |
| Smoking status (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.126 | 0.047 | 0.034 | 0.219 | 0.028 | 2.687 | 0.007 ** |
| Disability or illness 6+ months | −0.091 | 0.025 | −0.139 | −0.042 | −0.033 | −3.644 | 0.000 ** |
| High Cholesterol (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.016 | 0.030 | −0.042 | 0.074 | 0.005 | 0.553 | 0.580 |
| High blood pressure (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.012 | 0.030 | −0.048 | 0.071 | 0.004 | 0.388 | 0.698 |
| Hearth disease (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.047 | 0.058 | −0.066 | 0.161 | 0.008 | 0.812 | 0.417 |
| Diabetes (0 no, 1 yes) | 0.141 | 0.065 | 0.014 | 0.268 | 0.023 | 2.179 | 0.029 * |
| Asthma (0 no, 1 yes) | −0.067 | 0.032 | −0.131 | −0.004 | −0.017 | −2.089 | 0.037 * |
| Sleep duration (average night) | −0.004 | 0.010 | −0.024 | 0.016 | −0.004 | −0.371 | 0.711 |
| Kessler-6 score (stress level) | 0.014 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.022 | 0.042 | 3.162 | 0.002 ** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Extraversion | 0.066 | 0.010 | 0.047 | 0.085 | 0.061 | 6.887 | 0.000 ** |
| Agreeableness | −0.075 | 0.013 | −0.100 | −0.050 | −0.057 | −5.920 | 0.000 ** |
| Conscientiousness | 0.043 | 0.011 | 0.021 | 0.064 | 0.034 | 3.817 | 0.000 ** |
| Neuroticism | 0.004 | 0.012 | −0.020 | 0.027 | 0.003 | 0.292 | 0.770 |
| Openness | −0.106 | 0.010 | −0.126 | −0.086 | −0.093 | −10.500 | 0.000 ** |
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Predictor with standardized beta coefficient greater than 0.10 is bolded. Model fit statistics: R2 = 0.155, AIC = 42,381.019, BIC = 42,643.843. (Average n = 13,484).
Interpretation of Big-Five personality traits, including example traits, and likely adaptive benefit and costs resulting from high levels of each personality dimension (adapted from Sibley et al.) [38].
| Factor | Interpretation | Example Traits | Likely Adaptive Benefits of High Levels (in Evolutionary History) | Likely Costs of High Level (in Evolutionary History) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraversion | Engagement in social endeavours | Sociability, leadership, exhibition | Social gains (friends, mates, allies) | Energy and time; risks from social environment |
| Agreeableness | Ingroup co-operation and tolerance; reciprocal altruism in HEXACO model | Tolerance, forgiveness, (low) quarrelsomeness | Gains from cooperation, primarily with ingroup (mutual help and nonaggression) | Losses due to increased risk of exploitation in short-term exchanges |
| Conscientiousness | Engagement in task-related endeavours | Diligence, organization, attention to detail | Material gains (improved use of resources), reduced risk | Energy and time; risks from social environment |
| Neuroticism (low Emotional Stability) | Monitoring of inclusionary status and attachment relations; kin altruism in HEXACO model. | Anxiety, insecurity, (low) calmness | Maintenance of attachment relations; survival of kin in HEXACO model | Loss of potential gains associated with risks to attachment relations. |
| Openness to Experience | Engagement in ideas-related endeavours | Curiosity, imaginativeness, (low) need for cognitive closure and (low) need for certainty | Material and social gains (resulting from discovery) | Energy and time; risks from social and natural environment |
Demographic and psychological characteristics of low, moderate, and high entitlement groups.
| Age | Household Income | Narcissism | Gender | Ethnicity (% within Ethnic Group) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Low entitlement | 50.28 | 112,157.76 (94,064.42) | 2.62 | 55.8% | 44.2% | 83.2% | 68.9% | 55.6% | 65.8% |
| Moderate entitlement | 48.73 | 91,911.96 (70,940.92) | 3.30 | 48.2% | 51.8% | 14.8% | 24.2% | 33.0% | 27.7% |
| High entitlement | 49.81 | 79,287.57 (61,714.74) | 3.86 | 50.9% | 49.1% | 2.0% | 6.9% | 11.3% | 6.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| E | A | C | N | O | |||||
| Low entitlement | 5.15 | 5.08 | 4.79 | 28.5% | 3.88 | 5.32 | 5.10 | 3.35 | 5.00 |
| Moderate entitlement | 4.87 | 5.05 | 5.84 | 26.6% | 3.87 | 5.01 | 5.02 | 3.56 | 4.63 |
| High entitlement | 4.78 | 5.43 | 6.64 | 30.5% | 4.09 | 5.00 | 5.11 | 3.61 | 4.62 |
Notes: Table reports percentages for categorical variables, and mean values for continuous variables (standard deviations in brackets). Narcissism, belief about health controllability, self-rated health, and Big-five personality traits were measured on scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high). Kessler risk scores range from 0 (lowest) to 24 (highest). Satisfaction with healthcare access was measured on scale of 0 (low) to 10 (high). ‘E’ = Extraversion, ‘A’ = Agreeableness, ‘C’ = Conscientiousness, ‘N’ = Neuroticism, ‘O’ = Openness. Standard NZAVS weighting variable applied.