| Literature DB >> 32235427 |
Cliodna A M McNulty1, Rowshonara B Syeda1, Carla L Brown1, C Verity Bennett2, Behnaz Schofield3, David G Allison4, Neville Q Verlander5, Nick Francis6.
Abstract
Peer education (PE) interventions may help improve knowledge and appropriate use of antibiotics in young adults. In this feasibility study, health-care students were trained to educate 16-18 years old biology students, who then educated their non-biology peers, using e-Bug antibiotic lessons. Knowledge was assessed by questionnaires, and antibiotic use by questionnaire, SMS messaging and GP record searches. Five of 17 schools approached participated (3 PE and 2 control (usual lessons)). 59% (10/17) of university students and 28% (15/54) of biology students volunteered as peer-educators. PE was well-received; 30% (38/127) intervention students and 55% (66/120) control students completed all questionnaires. Antibiotic use from GP medical records (54/136, 40% of students' data available), student SMS (69/136, 51% replied) and questionnaire (109/136, 80% completed) data showed good agreement between GP and SMS (kappa = 0.72), but poor agreement between GP and questionnaires (kappa = 0.06). Median knowledge scores were higher post-intervention, with greater improvement for non-biology students. Delivering and evaluating e-Bug PE is feasible with supportive school staff. Single tiered PE by university students may be easier to regulate and manage due to time constraints on school students. SMS collection of antibiotic data is easier and has similar accuracy to GP data.Entities:
Keywords: antibiotic resistance; antibiotics; biology; health education; peer education; students
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235427 PMCID: PMC7235882 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9040146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Figure 1(a) Overview of intervention and the number of complete questionnaires and text messaging data in Cardiff. (b) Overview of intervention and the number of completed questionnaires in Manchester.
School students in Cardiff and Manchester intervention and control schools invited to and attending lessons, and completing pre- and immediately post and 3-month post-lesson questionnaires (N = 301).
| Intervention School | Class | Students Attending Lesson | Students Completing | Students Completing | Students Completing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (N) |
| % |
| % |
| % | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Manchester | M1 | 21 | 21 | 100 | 19 | 90 | 15 | 71 |
| Cardiff A | A1 | 26 | 26 | 100 | 24 | 92 | 19 | 73 |
| Cardiff B | B1 | 7 | 7 | 100 | 7 | 100 | 6 | 86 |
| Total biology students | 54 | 54 | 100 | 50 | 93 | 40 | 74 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Manchester | No peer education by Manchester biology students | |||||||
| Cardiff A | A2 | 11 | 11 | 100 | 10 | 91 | 11 | 100 |
| Cardiff B | B2 | 15 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 20 |
| B3 | 22 | 10 | 45 | 8 | 36 | 5 | 23 | |
| B4 | 16 | 5 | 31 | 5 | 31 | 4 | 25 | |
| B5 | 24 | 18 | 75 | 17 | 71 | 12 | 50 | |
| B6 | 15 | 9 | 60 | 9 | 60 | 8 | 53 | |
| Totals where data collected | 103 | 56 | 54 | 52 | 50 | 38 | 37 | |
| Cardiff B no questionnaires | B7 * | 24 | 0* | - | - | - | - | - |
| Overall Totals for non-biology students | 127 | 56 | 44 | 52 | 41 | 38 | 30 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Manchester | 25 | 18 | 72 | N/A | N/A | 21 | 84 | |
| Cardiff | 50 | 50 | 100 | N/A | N/A | 45 | 90 | |
| Total control students | 75 | 68 | 91 | N/A | N/A | 66 | 88 | |
* Students were too disruptive to allow for any data collection.
Figure 2(a) Box and whisker plots for Cardiff intervention and control schools for pre, post (intervention only) and a 3-month follow-up questionnaire. (b) Box and whisker plots for Manchester intervention and control school. Boxes show interquartile range (IQR) with the median as a horizontal line, whiskers include data points within 1.5× IQR of nearest quartile.
Figure 3Text message survey question and answer structure for each monthly survey.
Reported antibiotics prescribed in control and intervention students responding to any text versus GP data and students responding to all three-monthly texts versus GP data.
| Antibiotic Use Reported by SMS, GP Data, and Questionnaire Data | Antibiotic Prescribed at GP Surgery | % Agreement (kappa) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response | No | Yes | ||
| Antibiotic use reported by SMS in students responding to any SMS versus GP data (35) | No | 27 | 1 | 91% (0.72) |
| Yes | 2 | 5 | ||
| Total | 29 | 6 | 86% (0.67) | |
| Antibiotic use reported by SMS in students responding to all three-monthly texts versus GP data (22) | No | 14 | 1 | |
| Yes | 2 | 5 | ||
| Total | 16 | 6 | ||
| Antibiotic use reported by student in 3-month questionnaire (25) | No | 15 | 1 | 64% (0.06) |
| Yes | 8 | 1 | ||
| Total | 23 | 2 | ||