Volume 54 | Number 6 | December 2019

Abstract List

Jennifer Richmond MSPH, Rikki Mangrum MLS, Grace Wang PhD, MPH, Maureen Maurer MPH, Shoshanna Sofaer, Manshu Yang PhD, Kristin L. Carman PhD


To understand public attitudes about and recommendations to address antibiotic overuse by employing public deliberation (a method for eliciting informed input on value‐laden issues).

Data Sources/Study Setting

Participants in 24 Community Deliberation groups (CD; n = 263), four Citizens’ Panel groups (CP; n = 96), and a control group (n = 348). Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. locations.

Study Design

Using mixed methods, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a randomized control trial.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Using pre/postdeliberation surveys, we compared CD and CP participant attitude changes regarding antibiotic use to the control group. We analyzed deliberation transcripts using qualitative techniques to provide context for survey results.

Principal Findings

Compared to control group participants, CD and CP participants had a larger postdeliberation shift in attitudes toward support of government limits on when doctors can prescribe antibiotics. Participants described unawareness about antibiotic overuse and called for education. When discussing prescription limits, participants debated tensions between preserving patient/doctor autonomy and protecting society from antibiotic‐related harms. Participants saw patient, physician, and government roles in antibiotic stewardship policies/programs.


When informed about individual and social consequences of antibiotic overuse, patients may be more receptive to antibiotic prescription limits. Community‐physician‐government partnerships are needed to create solutions.