Critique the proposed patient decision aid. Include a summary of the plan and whether you would adopt it in your clinical practice. The critique should be between 250-500 words.
APA FormatNo Plagiarism
RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access
Construction of a patient decision aid for
the treatment of uncomplicated urinary
tract infection in primary care
Yves-Marie Vincent* , Adèle Frachon, Clotilde Buffeteau and Guillaume Conort
: Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI) is very common among women in primary care. The risk
of developing pyelonephritis remains low after uUTI, nonetheless, empiric antibiotic therapy is frequently prescribed
for symptomatic purposes. This may lead to adverse effects and antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, patients may
express the will to limit the use of antibiotics. Some European countries recommend discussing a delayed
prescription with the patient and developing a shared decision. The aim of this study is to create a patient decision
aid (PtDA) used in primary care settings to make a shared decision between practitioners and women about
whether or not to treat uUTI with antibiotics.
: We followed the steps recommended by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, with a
scoping phase, a design phase (including focus groups and literature review), and an alpha-testing phase. A
steering group, made of patients and physicians, met throughout the study to develop a prototype PtDA.
: The information included in the PtDA is the definition of uUTI, information on the options, their benefits,
risks, and consequences, based on a review of the literature. The results of the focus group made possible to
determine the patient’s values and preferences to consider in decision-making, including: the discomfort felt, the
impact on daily life, patients’ perceptions of antibiotics, and the position relative to the risk of adverse effect. The
choices in presentation, organisation and design are the result of the work of the steering group, improved by
feedback from alpha testing. We confirmed the need for shared decision-making and the equipoise in this situation.
s: We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care for sharing decision on the use of antibiotic in
uUTI. It needs to be validated in a beta-testing phase, with complementary advice from peers, and then tested in a
clinical study comparing its use with the systematic prescription approach.
Keywords: Uncomplicated urinary tract infection, Cystitis, Shared decision-making, Patient decision aid, Patient-
centred care, Primary care, Antibiotic, Focus group
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the
data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
* Correspondence: vincent.yvesmarie@u-bordeaux.fr
Département de Médecine Générale, Université de Bordeaux, Collège
Sciences de la santé, 146 rue Léo Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux Cedex, France
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01374-3
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1186/s12875-021-01374-3&domain=pdf
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5716-6931
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
mailto:vincent.yvesmarie@u-bordeaux.fr
Background
Uncomplicated urinary tract infection (uUTI), or cystitis,
is among the leading reasons for infectious disease con-
sultation in primary care [1]. Nearly half of women report
at least one episode of uUTI during their lifetime [2].
There is no standard definition of uUTI internationally
accepted. In France, uUTI in women is defined as an
acute urinary tract infection in adult under 75 years-old,
without signs of pyelonephritis or risk factor for more
severe disease (pregnancy, urogenital abnormalities, im-
munodeficiency, frailty).
Acute cystitis affects several facets of women’s life: so-
cial and intimate relationships, self-esteem, and ability to
work. Depending on the situation, the impact can vary
from a woman to another: from small discomfort to se-
vere disability impacting personal and/or professional
life [3, 4]. Nonetheless, cystitis can resolve spontaneously
[5] with a rare risk of pyelonephritis [6]. In this context,
some patients prefer either to discuss the advantages
and disadvantages of antibiotics with their physicians [7]
or even to avoid antibiotic uUTIs treatment [8]. This
lead several authors to suggest a shared decision-making
approach in uUTI [9, 10].
Currently, the systematic and immediate prescription
of empiric antibiotic treatment is often recommended to
reduce symptoms [11], even though physicians tend to
overestimate patients’ desire to take antibiotics [8].
First line antibiotic treatment often differs from one
country to another [12]. In France, the French-Language
Infectious Pathology Society (Société de Pathologie Infec-
tieuse de Langue Française) recommends fosfomycin
[13], but it is important to note that, frequently, the anti-
biotic prescribed empirically does not match pathogen
sensitivity on the microbiological results [14]. The effect-
iveness of a systematic antibiotic strategy on the infec-
tion must be put into perspective with potential adverse
effects like mycosis, headache, dizziness and digestive
disorders, and with the risk of resistance emergence
[15]. In France, fluoroquinolones resistant E. coli are
found in 3 to 7% of UTI in primary care [16, 17]. The
resistance rate of bacteria responsible for uUTI is higher
during the year following the prescription of an anti-
biotic for urinary tract infection in the primary care set-
ting [18, 19]. Additionally, research indicates that
compliance with prescribed treatment is variable [4].
Few countries already recommend other strategies
such as delayed treatment. Thus, in the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands, guidelines for uUTI suggest that
physicians discuss the options with the patient to delay
antibiotic treatment [20, 21].
Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are defined by the Inter-
national Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) as
“tools designed to help people participate in decision
making about health care options”, providing
“information on the options” and helping patients “clarify
and communicate the personal value they associate with
different features of the options” [22]. They make the
process easier to inform patients, explore different treat-
ment options [23] and have a positive effect on the diffu-
sion of information, clarifying the patients’ values, risk
perception, and involvement in the decision-making
process [24]. These PtDAs are particularly relevant when
linked to clinical recommendations [25].
A Dutch study reported that general practitioners who
used shared decision-making with their patients pre-
scribed fewer antibiotics in women under the age of 40
consulting for UTI [26]. In accordance with its guide-
lines, the National Institute for Health and Care Excel-
lence (NICE) published a decision aid to help health
care professionals to explain and discuss antibiotic treat-
ment options to patients with uUTI, [27]. However, this
decision aid does not incorporate all the dimensions rec-
ommended by the IPDAS [22], such as help to clarify
values, visual presentation of numeric probabilities or
guidance in deliberation and in communication. In
addition, to date, there is no PtDA available for the
treatment of uUTI for a French-speaking person.
The objective of this study is to develop a patient deci-
sion aid for shared decision-making for the treatment of
uUTI in primary care setting.
This PtDA is part of a research project that aims to com-
pare antibiotic consumption 14 days post-randomization
between current practice and the use of a PtDA in the
management of uUTI.
Methods
IPDAS reviewed the development process of PtDAs to
provide some empirical pragmatic guidelines [28]. They
recommend documenting each step in an iterative
process involving both physicians and patients, and to
give a checklist to help future PtDAs developments.
The development of our PtDA was conducted accord-
ing to these recommendations (Fig. 1). This study fo-
cused on the first four stages of development: scoping,
steering group, design and alpha testing, in order to ac-
quire enough information to launch the beta-testing
phase. This last step of development has to be carried
out in clinical practice and therefore requires another re-
cruitment and study.
Initial design
Literature review
Two researchers (GC, YMV) conducted a preliminary
literature review on antibiotic prescription in uUTI in
primary care settings, using MEDLINE (see annex) for
search strategy) and in the Cochrane databases. The re-
sults were screened using the title and abstract, followed
by full text assessment. Selection criteria were
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 2 of 11
randomised controlled trials comparing an antibiotic treat-
ment with either another antibiotic, a placebo, or symptom-
atic treatment in the primary care settings or meta-analysis
including primary care settings, the description of efficacy,
side effects and risks with or without antibiotic treatment.
This review aimed to define the decision targeted in the
PtDA, its relevance and the risks for patients. Further rele-
vant studies were included after inspecting the reference
lists in selected studies. This literature review was then up-
dated by a third researcher (AF), targeting the outcomes
identified by the steering group after the design phase and
after the alpha-testing phase. These outcomes were the nat-
ural history of uUTI, the duration of symptoms with antibi-
otics, the complication rate, the side effects rate, the
recurrence and resistance rate, the alternative treatment op-
tions and the patient’s acceptance of health care. These ele-
ments were summarised in a table and presented to the
steering group. The type of the study, date of publication,
the type of population with inclusion criteria, and the type
of treatment were also summarised, and relevant figures
were added.
We finally searched for examples of PtDAs on the
internet with inventories of such tools, like the Ottawa
hospital [29] and the Université Laval [30]. We com-
pleted this work with clinical practice guidelines in
countries with care settings similar to France, to deter-
mine the first line treatment and the association of
guidelines with PtDAs.
Focus groups
We used a qualitative method with focus groups [31].
The objective was to explore and clarify patients’ expec-
tations regarding the pieces of information and the for-
mat and design of the patient decision aid in the context
of uUTI.
Participants The inclusion criteria were adult women,
with or without a history of uUTI. We used a purposive
sampling approach, in order to maximise variation on
socio-demographic criteria. The criteria for variation
were the participants’ place of residence, socio-
professional status, and age. The initial recruitment was
carried out in patient support and community groups.
This did not result in a sufficient number of patients to
form focus groups. Additional recruitment was then
conducted in rural and urban private practices, during
consultations, or with posters. Four focus groups were
created, each including between four and six women.
Interview guide A semi-structured interview guide was
developed by the four investigators, based on the SUN-
DAE checklist [32], exploring the following elements:
� knowledge and experience of uUTI
� the physical, emotional, and social impact of uUTI
� knowledge and expectations regarding different
treatment options
Fig. 1 Development process, adapted from IPDAS
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 3 of 11
� expectations on the format, terms, and presentation
of the PtDA
Open questions, created based on the literature review,
were asked to encourage the emergence of idea.
Implementation of focus groups The focus groups
took place in general practices outside the health care
setting or on the premises of patient support and com-
munity groups. They were audio-recorded. Prior to the
focus group, the participants were asked to fill out a
short questionnaire to obtain socio-demographic data,
including their age and professional status. Each focus
group began with a brief presentation to the participants
of the concept of shared decision-making and of the
purpose of the study. Exchanges during focus groups
were facilitated by a moderator experienced in conduct-
ing such interviews (GC and YMV, then AF and CB).
The moderator was seconded by a researcher in charge
of noting non-verbal communication and ensuring that
no theme or participant was overlooked by the
moderator.
Inductive analysis The focus groups were entirely tran-
scribed and anonymised. The data analysis was carried
out with the R software (version 3.5.1, RQDA package).
We followed an inductive content analysis approach,
using grounded theory as described by Kitzinger et al.
[31, 33]. After a global reading of the verbatims, the
minimum meaning units were identified. They were then
coded according to the different aspects relevant to pa-
tient decision-making and were labelled using shortened
titles. Double coding was carried out independently by
two researchers (AF and CB). Doubts or disagreements
were discussed before pooling the final analysis. These
meaning units were grouped into categories using the-
matic analysis, and then presented and discussed during
steering meetings in order to establish the specifications
of the PtDA.
Ethics Before each focus group, participants signed an
informed consent agreement. They were informed of the
objective of the research project. The anonymity and
confidentiality of the data were ensured by anonymizing
the recordings during transcription and then by deleting
the recordings at the end of the study. The project re-
ceived a favorable opinion from the National Commis-
sion for Data Protection (Commission nationale de
l’informatique et des libertés) on 13 March 2018.
Draft version of the prototype
The steering group consisted of four physicians (the re-
searchers) and three patients. The patients were re-
cruited through patient support and community groups
and general practices. Their written consent and socio-
demographic characteristics were collected.
The group used the checklist established by IPDAS
[22, 34] and examples of PtDAs. The content and design
of the PtDA were then defined based on the main cat-
egories which emerged from our focus groups and fur-
ther supplemented by the results of the literature review.
These elements were discussed by the steering group.
The draft specifications were then defined and sent to a
graphic designer who produced a draft version of the
prototype.
Alpha-testing
The draft version of the prototype was presented to pa-
tients in two focus groups (composed of respectively
three and four participants), supplemented by two indi-
vidual patient’s interviews. Three individual interviews
with general practitioners independent of the study were
also conducted. We used the same interview guide for
individual interviews and focus groups. The interview
guide explored content, design and practical use, allow-
ing every participant to question each element on the
tool. Written consent was obtained from the partici-
pants. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and
analysed according to the method described above.
Final version of the prototype
The steering group met a second time to discuss and
validate the adjustments suggested during the alpha-
testing phase. This information was transmitted to the
graphic designer.
The graphic designer produced the final version of the
prototype from two versions that were identical in con-
tent but different in appearance. These two versions
were submitted to the members of the steering group
who validated the final version.
Results
Initial design
Literature review
We found 408 references with the search strategy. We
selected 34 references. The literature review identified
five randomized trials comparing antibiotic versus pla-
cebo in uUTI [5, 35–38]. These five trials were all in-
cluded in a meta-analysis published in 2009 [6].
We selected four randomized trials comparing the use
of an antibiotic to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drug (NSAID) in uUTI [9, 10, 39, 40] and four mono-
centric studies describing the natural history of uUTI
[14, 41–43].
We selected four examples of available PtDAs: three
PtDAs regarding anti-infectious treatment decisions in
outpatient settings [29, 30, 44] and a fourth blank PtDA,
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 4 of 11
which could be used for any shared decision-making
situation.
Symptom duration Untreated uUTI healed spontan-
eously in 50–70% of cases. Symptoms could last up to
several weeks [42]. Mild to severe symptoms improved
after 4.94 days in women not taking antibiotics [43].
Symptoms in women not taking an antibiotic lasted 50–
60% longer than in women treated with an antibiotic to
which the bacterium was susceptible [43]. Clinical reso-
lution of symptoms was more likely in patients treated
with antibiotics, with an odds ratio of 4.67 [2.34–9.35] [6].
After three days, the proportion of complete resolution
of symptoms varied across studies, from 37% in patients
treated with nitrofurantoin versus 20% in patients
treated with placebo [5], 44% in women treated with fos-
fomycin versus 24% in women treated with ibuprofen
[13], and 80% in women treated with norfloxacin versus
54% in women treated with diclofenac [40].
Risk of complications The risk of pyelonephritis was
not significantly different between patients taking an
antibiotic and those taking a placebo (OR 0.33; CI
[0.04–2.70]). The incidence of pyelonephritis ranged
from 0 to 2.6% [6]. There was no reported case of sepsis.
The French guidelines describe the risk of pyelonephritis
as very low [13].
Three out of the four trials comparing antibiotic use
with an NSAID in uUTI reported more pyelonephritis in
women taking a NSAID compared to women taking an
antibiotic [9] [10] [40].
Adverse reactions The occurrence of adverse events
was significantly higher in antibiotic-treated patients
compared to placebo-treated patients [6].
In the case of pivmecillinam, 5–8% of adverse events
were reported [38]. In a multinational trial conducted in
primary care and hospital settings, patients taking single
dose fosfomycin had a 6% rate of adverse events versus
8% in patients taking nitrofurantoin. The most common
adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, abdominal pain), asthenia, headache, dizziness,
and vaginal discharge [5] [45]. These studies did not re-
port any serious allergic reactions related to antibiotics.
Recurrence The data did not allow for a meta-analysis
on the occurrence of clinical recurrence [6]. In the study
comparing nitrofurantoin to placebo the clinical recur-
rence rate at two weeks was between 17.6% in the pla-
cebo group and 20% in the treatment group [5]. In the
study comparing pivmecillinam to placebo the recur-
rence rate at one month was 12–13% in both group [38].
We did not find study reporting the incidence of recur-
rence over longer periods.
Resistance The emergence of resistance in the random-
ized studies varied from 0 to 45.5% in women taking an
antibiotic versus 0–20% of women taking a placebo, with
no significant difference [6]. In a Swedish study, anti-
biotic treatment for a uUTI in primary care was associ-
ated with a higher rate of bacterial resistance [19].
Alternative treatments Patients taking herbal medicine
did not have a different symptom course than those tak-
ing a placebo [46, 47]. There is no evidence of cranberry
(Vaccinium macrocarpon) or hydration as an effective
treatment for uncomplicated cystitis [48], 49].
Focus groups
Participants spoke of their personal or reported experi-
ences with cystitis and their impact on their social and
sexual lives: “It restricts social life, because you always
have to be near a bathroom (laughter)” (P3.2), “You don’t
dare to have sex anymore” (P4.4).
This experience touched on intimacy and could be
perceived as taboo: “It’s a feeling of guilt, actually. Well,
in a way it is, because we feel that our intimacy as
women is being attacked” (P3.4).
They feared that cystitis could be complicated by
renal, gynaecological, or fertility problems: “If there’s
blood in my urine it means that the kidneys must be af-
fected” (P3.2), “It’s going to make an infection maybe a
bit generalized in that area, maybe causing problems to
have children…” (P1.2).
Their knowledge about the risk factors and treatment
of cystitis was part of a lay knowledge shared amongst
women: “I told my mother about it and she said: don’t
worry, drink lots of water, it will pass, this antibiotic
works well; because she often had it” (P2.2).
Some participants described a feeling of infantilization
and guilt during the consultation with the physician:
“The doctor or the ones I saw, made me feel like it was
my fault because I didn’t wash (myself) well. Afterwards,
we are told once we hold it back! We don’t have to be
told every time” (P3.2).
They wanted a personalized exchange, where they
could express their experiences: “What is important with
cystitis, I learned from the doctor who took the time to
explain it to me. […] We are not in a normal state when
we are sick. So he really needs to listen to us” (P2.5).
The participants wished to clearly define cystitis and
its risk factors, with a vocabulary accessible to all, with-
out medical jargon: “And in rather simple terms, so that
everyone can understand it… Not in doctor’s language”
(P1.3). They suggested a pictorial presentation: “The
more graphic, the more people are affected” (P1.3), ac-
companied by the doctor: “The diagram is nice, but if
the doctor doesn’t explain it to you, […] she won’t under-
stand anything” (P3.3).
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 5 of 11
Their expectations of treatment could be the rapid re-
lief of symptoms, or the prevention of recurrence in the
longer term: “Isn’t there something more effective and
long-lasting, […] rather than just immediately stopping
the pain?” (P1.2).
Some patients have expressed an interest in being in-
volved in the decision related to the antibiotic: “Do you
have something to offer me that is not antibiotics? I have
time now, I can stay at home, if it’s really not going well
we’ll switch to antibiotics, but why don’t we test some-
thing else? Maybe there should be a second option”
(P4.4).
The action of the antibiotic was seen as magical, but
could lead to side effects and resistance: “This antibiotic
was really a miracle” (P6.1), “Every antibiotic […] that
we swallow, we know that there are side-effects” (P1.1).
The participants considered alternative treatments, de-
scribed as natural, such as cranberry or hydration: “Hav-
ing the choice between a chemical molecule and
something a bit more natural, something less harsh, I’ll
take what is less harsh” (P2.3).
Draft version of the prototype
The draft version of the prototype (Fig. 2) included the
following elements.
The title explicitly described the decision of whether
to take an antibiotic or not. The elements of the PtDA
were then arranged according to these two choices.
The common symptoms and etiology of uUTI were
briefly described and illustrated with a diagram of the
bladder.
The treatment options that were presented included
antibiotic treatment, hydration, and cranberry. The prac-
tical modality of a single-dose antibiotic therapy was
specified.
The average duration of symptoms, the risks of recur-
rence, resistance and complications were detailed ac-
cording to whether the antibiotic was taken or not.
Coloured pictograms numerically represented the evo-
lution of symptoms after three days according to the
choice of treatment and the incidence of adverse effects.
The patient values to report were physical discomfort,
the impact on their daily life (professional, social, sex-
ual), their general opinion on antibiotics and their ad-
verse effects. A free space allowed for the collection of
additional value.
Deliberation was facilitated by sliders polarized ac-
cording to the two options, for each expressed value. A
final slider helped in the decision-making process.
The chosen format of the PtDA was a double-sided
A4 sheet of paper. It was intended to be used during a
discussion with the physician during the consultation
and not by the patient alone.
Fig. 2 Draft version of the prototype
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 6 of 11
Alpha-testing and final version of prototype
The results of the alpha-testing phase and the second
meeting of the steering group are presented in Table 1,
according to the main points of the SUNDAE checklist
[32]. The final prototype of the PtDA is shown in Fig. 3.
The literature review showed a need to increase patient’s
involvement in the decision-making process for uUTI
treatment. Patient’s feedbacks during focus groups con-
firmed this need [8] [7]. The literature review could not
reveal which decision was intrinsically better than the
other and confirmed the relevance of the equipoise. In
2009, a study including 1900 French general
practitioners, concluded that there was a need for tools
to reduce the gaps between guidelines and patient pref-
erences [50]. Our goal is to meet this demand by provid-
ing a validated PtDA.
Hence, we developed a prototype of PtDA to help physi-
cians and patients to make a shared decision regarding
antibiotic treatment for uUTI. This prototype aims to pro-
vide support during consultations, in addition to the infor-
mation delivered orally by the physician (diagnosis, risk
factors, monitoring, advice for further consultation, etc.).
Of note, we recruited more patients face-to-face dur-
ing medical consultations than through patient support
and community groups. The ease of face-to-face recruit-
ment was previously described in the literature [51].
Table 1 Results of the alpha-testing phase and 2nd steering group
SUNDAE Check-list Alpha-testing Results Steering group
Participants (FG + II) Physicians (II) Changes made
Explicit description of
the decision
✗ Reformulate the title in interrogative form
✓ No need to specify the revocable nature of the
decision and the possibility of re-consultation, which
must be clarified orally by the doctor
Modified title
Polarized distribution of
information according to the
decision
Description of the
health problem
✗ Need for a clearer definition of uUTI
✗ Diagram of bladder not very useful and difficult to
identify
✓ Validation of symptoms
description
Improved definition of uUTI,
addition of the term inflammation
Removed the bladder diagram
Information on
options, their benefits,
risks, and
consequences
✓ Overall positive to help in decision-making
✓ Layout validation
✗ Improving the visibility of adverse events and their
link to antibiotics
✗ Term “several weeks” not precise enough
✓ Suitable information
✓ Information on the risk of
pyelonephritis is relevant
because it is not well known
✓ Interest of the precision on
the absence of risk on fertility
✗ Provide information on
alternative treatments to
antibiotics
✗ Improve the reading of
information by changing the
formatting of the text
Adjusting for recurrence,
complication, and adverse event
rates using data from the literature
Improved description of adverse
reactions
Clarification on the low level of
evidence for alternative treatments
(cranberry, hydration)
Improved, more spacious page
layout
Numerical probabilities ✓ Validation of the pictograms
✓ Good understanding of adverse reaction data
✓ Validation of the pictograms Adjustment using data from the
literature
Addition of bibliographical
references
Adding the PtDA update date
Clarification of values
(implicit and explicit)
✓ Validation of the values explored
✓ Validation of the concept of slider left blank but
needs to be explained
Legend for the blank slider
Guidance in
deliberation
✗ Add a color gradient to the sliders, and don’t put
the slider in the center by default
✓ Slider format and polarization validation
✗ Non-contributing final slider
✗ Make it clear that the patient’s decision is made
orally with her doctor
✗ Coloring the sliders Changing the slider graphics
Final slider replaced by a
sentence encouraging deliberation
with the doctor
Guidance in
communication
✗ Reading of the PtDA to be accompanied by the
doctor
✗ Fear of a difficulty of use
due to lack of time, in
particular with the sliders
Elements to be included in
training to use the PtDA
Reading and
comprehension level
✓ Understandable slider terms
✗ Prefer the term “drinking water” to “hydration”
Clarification of the definition of
resistance
Replacing the term hydration
Other ✗ Enhance contrast, favor a uniform background
✓ Pink color validation
✗ Enhance contrast Improved contrast
✗ elements to improve ✓ elements validated FG focus group, II Individual interview.
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 7 of 11
Moreover, in 2016 and 2017, a law led to the creation of
a new national-scale patient support and community
group: France Assos Santé. This major change in the
community groups field led to the need for their
reorganization. This may have hindered their participa-
tion despite a strong willingness to be involved in the
project.
The medium-sized focus groups in our study allowed
rich and varied exchanges, including those involving in-
timate topics, as already described in the literature,
where a focus group of four to six participants has previ-
ously been documented to facilitates communication
[51]. The age and socio-professional category criteria
and place of residence varied, which contributed to the
expression of diverse points of view.
Some elements collected from the focus groups corre-
sponded with the existing literature, such as representa-
tions of uUTI and its risk factors [8], representations
and opinions on antibiotics [8] [7], and the impact on
social or professional life [3]. Patients mentioned numer-
ous representations relating to the gynaecological
sphere, intimacy, sexuality, and fertility. Such representa-
tions are rarely found in articles regarding uUTI. Their
evocation was facilitated during focus groups composed
solely of women, including the observer and the investi-
gator. The importance of representations around femin-
inity was integrated into the PtDA using a pink/purple
colour. Some members of the focus group expressed the
desire to have a more gender-neutral representation.
The pink colour was widely validated by the patients
during the alpha-testing phase and was consequently
retained.
Some of these representations correspond to known
risk factors (i.e. sexual intercourse), however, the steer-
ing group decided not to mention risk factors because
they were not directly involved in the decision-making
process. Other representations were beliefs (risk of infer-
tility) that were absent in the literature. Some patients
wanted to be able to discuss them. This information
could be added in a leaflet handed over to the patient.
Most of the patients’ values expressed in the focus
groups could be integrated into the PtDA, particularly in
the slider. An empty slider allows the patient to express
additional values, like her expectations regarding treat-
ment (reduction of recurrence, rapid symptom relief,
etc.).
One concern expressed among the interviewed pa-
tients and doctors was the risk of pyelonephritis. There
is little data on the natural course of uUTI without anti-
biotics, and the meta-analysis comparing antibiotics to
placebo did not show a significant increase in the risk of
pyelonephritis between the two [6]. However, patients
treated with an anti-inflammatory drug had a higher risk
of pyelonephritis compared to those treated with an
Fig. 3 Final version of the prototype
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 8 of 11
antibiotic [9] [10] [40]. This increased risk could be ex-
plained by the harmful role that anti-inflammatory drugs
can play in infectious diseases [40].
Some of the interviewed physicians were concerned
that the use of the PtDA would lengthen the consult-
ation. There is little evidence on the impact of shared-
decision making on the length of consultations [52], but
a study comparing a standard approach to the use of
PtDAs in the management of depression in primary care
did not show a significant difference in the length of the
visit [53].
A noticeable limitation of this PtDA is the lack of
medical perspectives exterior to the study. The number
of interviews with physicians during the alpha-testing
phase was low. As already reported in a Cochrane re-
view, during PtDAs development, patients’ views were
more often collected than those of physicians [24].
The steering group chose to present the probability of
symptoms after three days. This time frame made pos-
sible to present data in the PtDAs regarding the first-
line antibiotic in France (fosfomycin) and placebo. This
short delay is in line with the French guidelines which
recommend another consultation after three days in case
of treatment failure, but also with the British guidelines
proposing a 48-h delay for the delayed prescription of
antibiotics. Indeed, delayed prescribing could reduce
antibiotic use [54]. This option is close to immediate
non-prescription and re-evaluation in case of persistent
symptoms. Delaying the prescription can therefore fit in
the use of the PtDA, which is not currently recom-
mended in France [13], contrary to the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands [20] [21]. Hence, our PtDA pro-
poses not to prescribe antibiotics immediately. PtDAs
have a better clinical impact when they are developed
simultaneously to national guidelines [25], as NICE has
been able to do [27]. Our PtDA is similar to NICE’s
PtDA with regards to the information on the options,
their benefits, risks, and consequences, and is based on
the same literature references. On the other hand,
NICE’s PtDA does not include a diagram to facilitate an
appropriate understanding of numerical probabilities;
besides, it does not allow patients to clarify their values
nor foster deliberation, as recommended by the IPDAS
[22].
Our PtDA was created in line with international stan-
dards and will soon be beta-tested in a larger study [28].
Helped by users’ feedbacks, the beta-test phase will allow
to improve our tool and the global acceptance of the
concept from both patient and physician perspectives.
The possibility to implement this approach in France
will also be studied during the beta-test. Indeed, there
may be some difficulties to implement the PtDA in clin-
ical practice. The PtDA leads to a discussion with the
patient about the choice of using antiobiotic or not,
whereas actual French guidelines advise a systematic
antibiotic prescription. Furthermore, systematic anti-
biotic prescription requires less investment from the
practitioner. Nevertheless, practitioner investment can
lead to better outcomes: if the practitioner is optimistic
about diagnosis and prognosis, symptoms could resolve
faster [43]. Thus, if our PtDA shows good implementa-
tion during the beta-test, it would lead to a large-scale
study with a validated PtDA to evaluate its impact on
antibiotic prescription and patients’ satisfaction. This
could influence new national guidelines on cystitis for
general practitioners and then facilitate the PtDAs
implementation.
Conclusion
uUTI is no longer considered as a pathology for which
the symptomatology is experienced similarly for all pa-
tients and for which a single treatment should be of-
fered. The literature review suggests that uUTI is an
equipoise situation, hence, shared-decision making
seems to be the best way to broach this subject. Devel-
oping a tool to help for shared-decision making in pri-
mary care consultation is necessary to move forward and
to assess its efficiency compared to a systematic anti-
biotic treatment approach. To do so, we developed one
of the first PtDA for uUTI treatment in primary care, in
line with international standards.
The impact of our PtDA on patients’ satisfaction and
antibiotic prescription remains to be evaluated, but its
conception has already brought a lot of information on
patients’ and practitioners’ perceptions of uUTI.
(“urinary tract infections”[MAJR] OR (“urinary
tract”[TW] AND infection*[TW]) OR uti [TW] OR cyst-
itis [TW])
AND
(“Anti-Bacterial Agents”[Mesh] OR antibiotic*[TW] OR
antibacterial*[TW] OR anti-bacterial*[TW] OR antiin-
fective*[TW] OR anti-Infective*[TW])
AND
(“primary health care”[Mesh] OR primary health care
[TW] OR “healthcare, primary”[TW] OR “care, pri-
mary”[TW] OR “primary care”[TW] OR “primary health-
care”[TW] OR “primary care setting”[TW] OR “general
practitioner”[Mesh] OR “general practice”[Mesh] OR gen-
eral practice*[TW].
OR
(“Meta-Analysis” [Publication Type] OR Meta-Analysis
[TW] OR “Meta Analysis”[TW] OR “systematic
review”[TW])
IPDAS: International Patient Decision Aids Standards; NICE: National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence; NSAID: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug;
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 9 of 11
PtDAs: Patient decision aids; uUTI: Uncomplicated urinary tract infection;
SUNDAE: Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid
Evaluation
Special thanks to the physicians for volunteer participation and to all the
patients who took the time to participate in this study.
We would like to thank Carter Brown, Caroline Caradu and Nadège Oustrière
for their writing assistance.
YMV and GC were in charge of the methodology part, while AF and CB led
the focus groups. All authors participated in drafting the manuscript. The
author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
There was no funding for this study.
The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
We have the agreement of the French CNIL (Commission Nationale de
l’Informatique et des Libertés) for our work.
Our Referent was Chantal Durand from the CHU of Bordeaux.
We obtain written and oral consent from all participants.
Not applicable.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 11 June 2020 Accepted: 14 January 2021
1. Hummers-Pradier E, Kochen MM. Urinary tract infections in adult general
practice patients. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:752–61.
2. Foxman B, Barlow R, D’Arcy H, Gillespie B, Sobel JD. Urinary tract infection:
self-reported incidence and associated costs. Ann Epidemiol. 2000;10:509–
15.
3. Flower A, Bishop FL, Lewith G. How women manage recurrent urinary tract
infections: an analysis of postings on a popular web forum. BMC Fam Pract.
2014;15:162.
4. Butler CC, Hawking MK, Quigley A, McNulty CA. Incidence, severity, help
seeking, and management of uncomplicated urinary tract infection: a
population-based survey. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65:e702–7.
5. Christiaens TCM, De Meyere M, Verschraegen G, Peersman W, Heytens S, De
Maeseneer JM. Randomised controlled trial of nitrofurantoin versus placebo
in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in adult women.
Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52:729–34.
6. Falagas ME, Kotsantis IK, Vouloumanou EK, Rafailidis PI. Antibiotics versus
placebo in the treatment of women with uncomplicated cystitis: a meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Inf Secur. 2009;58:91–102.
7. Leydon GM, Turner S, Smith H, Little P. UTIS team. Women’s views about
management and cause of urinary tract infection: qualitative interview
study. BMJ. 2010;340:c279.
8. Duane S, Domegan C, Callan A, Galvin S, Cormican M, Bennett K, et al.
Using qualitative insights to change practice: exploring the culture of
antibiotic prescribing and consumption for urinary tract infections. BMJ
Open. 2016;6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008894.
9. Gágyor I, Bleidorn J, Kochen MM, Schmiemann G, Wegscheider K,
Hummers-Pradier E. Ibuprofen versus fosfomycin for uncomplicated urinary
tract infection in women: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h6544.
10. Vik I, Bollestad M, Grude N, Bærheim A, Damsgaard E, Neumark T, et al.
Ibuprofen versus pivmecillinam for uncomplicated urinary tract infection in
women—a double-blind, randomized non-inferiority trial. PLoS Med. 2018;
15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002569.
11. Hooton TM. Clinical practice. Uncomplicated urinary tract infection. N Engl J
Med. 2012;366:1028–37.
12. Malmros K, Huttner BD, McNulty C, Rodríguez-Baño J, Pulcini C, Tängdén T.
Comparison of antibiotic treatment guidelines for urinary tract infections in
15 European countries: results of an online survey. Int J Antimicrob Agents.
2019;54:478–86.
13. Caron F, Galperine T, Flateau C, Azria R, Bonacorsi S, Bruyère F, et al. Practice
guidelines for the management of adult community-acquired urinary tract
infections. Med Mal Infect. 2018;48:327–58.
14. Butler CC, Francis N, Thomas-Jones E, Llor C, Bongard E, Moore M, et al.
Variations in presentation, management, and patient outcomes of urinary
tract infection: a prospective four-country primary care observational cohort
study. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67:e830–41.
15. Gupta K, Hooton TM, Naber KG, Wullt B, Colgan R, Miller LG, et al.
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;52:e103–20.
16. Rossignol L, Vaux S, Maugat S, Blake A, Barlier R, Heym B, et al. Incidence of
urinary tract infections and antibiotic resistance in the outpatient setting: a
cross-sectional study. Infection. 2017;45:33–40.
17. Malmartel A, Ghasarossian C. Epidemiology of urinary tract infections,
bacterial species and resistances in primary care in France. Eur J Clin
Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35:447–51.
18. Costelloe C, Metcalfe C, Lovering A, Mant D, Hay AD. Effect of antibiotic
prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients:
systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;340:c2096.
19. Kornfält Isberg H, Melander E, Hedin K, Mölstad S, Beckman A.
Uncomplicated urinary tract infections in Swedish primary care; etiology,
resistance and treatment. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19:155.
20. Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap. NHG Guidelines Urinary Tract
Infections. https://www.nhg.org/standaarden/samenvatting/
urineweginfecties. Accessed 4 May 2020
21. Overview | Urinary tract infection (lower): antimicrobial prescribing |
Guidance | NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG109. Accessed 4 May
2020.
22. International Patient Decision Aid Standards. 2012 Update of the IPDAS
collaboration background document. IPDAS; 2012. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/
resources.html.
23. Feldman-Stewart D, O’Brien MA, Clayman ML, Davison BJ, Jimbo M,
Labrecque M, et al. Providing information about options in patient decision
aids. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2013;13. https://doi.org/
10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S4.
24. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision
aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
25. van der Weijden T, Boivin A, Burgers J, Schünemann HJ, Elwyn G. Clinical
practice guidelines and patient decision aids. An inevitable relationship. J
Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:584–9.
26. van Esch TEM, Brabers AEM, Hek K, van Dijk L, Verheij RA, de Jong JD. Does
shared decision-making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care? J
Antimicrob Chemother. 2018;73:3199–205.
27. Tools and resources | Urinary tract infection (lower): antimicrobial
prescribing | Guidance | NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng109/
resources. Accessed 4 May 2020.
28. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A
systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform
Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2.
29. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Ottawa Personal Decision Guides –
Patient Decision Aids. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decguide.html. Accessed 6
May 2020.
30. Chaire de recherche du Canada sur la décision partagée, Université de
Laval. Boîte à décision. Boîte à décision. http://www.decisionbox.ulaval.ca/.
Accessed 6 May 2020.
31. Kitzinger J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:
299–302.
32. Sepucha KR, Abhyankar P, Hoffman AS, Bekker HL, LeBlanc A, Levin CA, et al.
Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient decision aid evaluation studies:
the development of SUNDAE checklist. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:380–8.
33. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;
62:107–15.
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 10 of 11
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008894
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002569
https://www.nhg.org/standaarden/samenvatting/urineweginfecties
https://www.nhg.org/standaarden/samenvatting/urineweginfecties
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG109
http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html
http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S4
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S4
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng109/resources
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng109/resources
https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decguide.html
http://www.decisionbox.ulaval.ca/
34. Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al.
Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online
international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333:417.
35. Dubi J, Chappuis P, Darioli R. Treatment of urinary infection with a single
dose of co-trimoxazole compared with a single dose of amoxicillin and a
placebo. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1982;112:90–2.
36. Brooks D, Garrett G, Hollihead R. Sulphadimidine, co-trimoxazole, and a
placebo in the management of symptomatic urinary tract infection in
general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1972;22:695–703.
37. Asbach HW. Single dose oral administration of cefixime 400mg in the
treatment of acute uncomplicated cystitis and gonorrhoea. Drugs. 1991;
42(Suppl 4):10–3.
38. Ferry SA, Holm SE, Stenlund H, Lundholm R, Monsen TJ. Clinical and
bacteriological outcome of different doses and duration of pivmecillinam
compared with placebo therapy of uncomplicated lower urinary tract
infection in women: the LUTIW project. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2007;25:
49–57.
39. Bleidorn J, Gágyor I, Kochen MM, Wegscheider K, Hummers-Pradier E.
Symptomatic treatment (ibuprofen) or antibiotics (ciprofloxacin) for
uncomplicated urinary tract infection? – results of a randomized controlled
pilot trial. BMC Med. 2010;8:30.
40. Kronenberg A, Bütikofer L, Odutayo A, Mühlemann K, da Costa BR, Battaglia
M, et al. Symptomatic treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract
infections in the ambulatory setting: randomised, double blind trial. BMJ.
2017;359:j4784.
41. Ronald AR, Pattullo ALS. The natural history of urinary infection in adults.
Med Clin N Am. 1991;75:299–312.
42. Hooton TM. The current management strategies for community-acquired
urinary tract infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 2003;17:303–32.
43. Little P, Merriman R, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Lowes JA, et al.
Presentation, pattern, and natural course of severe symptoms, and role of
antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among patients presenting with
suspected uncomplicated urinary tract infection in primary care:
observational study. BMJ. 2010;340:b5633.
44. Vaginal Yeast Infection: Should I Treat It Myself? HealthLink BC. https://www.
healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tn9593. Accessed 7 May 2020.
45. Huttner A, Kowalczyk A, Turjeman A, Babich T, Brossier C, Eliakim-Raz N,
et al. Effect of 5-day Nitrofurantoin vs single-dose Fosfomycin on clinical
resolution of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection in women. JAMA.
2018;319:1781–9.
46. Moore M, Trill J, Simpson C, Webley F, Radford M, Stanton L, et al. Uva-ursi
extract and ibuprofen as alternative treatments for uncomplicated urinary
tract infection in women (ATAFUTI): a factorial randomized trial. Clin
Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:973–80.
47. Wagenlehner FM, Abramov-Sommariva D, Höller M, Steindl H, Naber KG.
Non-antibiotic herbal therapy (BNO 1045) versus antibiotic therapy
(Fosfomycin Trometamol) for the treatment of acute lower uncomplicated
urinary tract infections in women: a double-blind, parallel-group,
randomized, multicentre. Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial Urologia
Internationalis. 2018;101:327–36.
48. Mantzorou M, Giaginis C. Cranberry consumption against urinary tract
infections: clinical Stateof- the-art and future perspectives. CPB. 2019;19:
1049–63.
49. Jepson RG, Williams G, Craig JC. Cranberries for preventing urinary tract
infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/
14651858.CD001321.pub5.
50. Guerville P, Régi V, Ventelou V. Les pratiques en médecine générale dans
cinq régions. Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des
statistiques Etudes et Résultats; 2009. p. 8.
51. Tausch AP, Menold N. Methodological aspects of focus groups in Health
Research: results of qualitative interviews with focus group moderators.
Global Qualitative Nursing Research. 2016;3:233339361663046.
52. Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, et al.
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. The
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;2017. https://doi.org/10.
1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.
53. Loh A, Simon D, Wills CE, Kriston L, Niebling W, Härter M. The effects of a
shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a
cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:324–32.
54. Little P, Moore MV, Turner S, Rumsby K, Warner G, Lowes JA, et al.
Effectiveness of five different approaches in management of urinary tract
infection: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c199.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Vincent et al. BMC Family Practice (2021) 22:26 Page 11 of 11
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tn9593
https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/health-topics/tn9593
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001321.pub5
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001321.pub5
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
BioMed Central publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL). Under
the CCAL, authors retain copyright to the article but users are allowed to download, reprint,
distribute and /or copy articles in BioMed Central journals, as long as the original work is
properly cited.
- Abstract
Background
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Background
Methods
Initial design
Literature review
Focus groups
Draft version of the prototype
Alpha-testing
Final version of the prototype
Results
Initial design
Literature review
Focus groups
Draft version of the prototype
Alpha-testing and final version of prototype
Discussion
Conclusion
Appendix
Abbreviations
Acknowledgments
Authors’ contributions
Funding
Availability of data and materials
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
Competing interests
References
Publisher’s Note
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
