Medical research

It’s ok if scientists disagree about antibiotic prescriptions

It is far better to find ways to communicate why evidence may be inconclusive than oversimplify medical science.

On numerous matters including food, health and the environment, experts are called upon to communicate the implications of scientific evidence for particular choices. It may be tempting to highlight simple messages from complex evidence. But as the recent controversy over advice on antibiotics shows, there is a risk of such messages backfiring when new evidence comes to light. So in these fractious times of “alternative facts”, how best can experts build trust with the public?

Evidence provided by science is often mixed, incomplete, changeable or conditional on context. Yet experts are expected to stick to narratives that highlight a consensus view. Simplifying the complex may be essential for public communication, but this is not the same as glossing over uncertainty or valid disagreements. It is far better to find ways to communicate why evidence may be inconclusive and why experts might reasonably make different judgements on the same question.

On antibiotics, it may be confusing to find experts giving conflicting assessments on whether or not people should “finish the course”. But far from representing post-truth, this disagreement suggests we must pay more attention to the matter of how to cope, despite the vagaries of expert consensus.

Fraying antibiotics consensus

Healthcare professionals have long stressed that people must not stop taking prescribed antibiotics when they feel better. Some experts recently questioned this conventional wisdom in the British Medical Journal, suggesting that the advice is not evidence-based and that it impedes conservation of antibiotics in light of bacterial resistance. Elsewhere, it is claimed that antibiotics are prescribed more out of fear and habit than on the basis of science.

But other experts have been critical, saying that the call to change established prescribing practice is dangerous as it is itself unsupported by sufficient evidence.

In this debate, many actually agree that it is worth reconsidering antibiotic duration, and that more clinical trials are needed to specify appropriate doses for different infections. Some consensus is emerging that shorter courses may sometimes be sensible – but more evidence is needed.

Chest physician Dr Prabhu and staff nurse Mala examine and evaluate a patient who defaulted on his anti-tuberculosis treatment (ATT) and is now a MDR (multi-drug resistant) TB (tuberculosis) suspect at the government hospital for chest diseases in Pondicherry, India, 2014. (Photo: CDC Global/Flickr)
Chest physician Dr Prabhu and staff nurse Mala examine and evaluate a patient who defaulted on his anti-tuberculosis treatment (ATT) and is now a MDR (multi-drug resistant) TB (tuberculosis) suspect at the government hospital for chest diseases in Pondicherry, India, 2014. (Photo: CDC Global/Flickr)

All agree, for example, that tuberculosis merits a longer course of antibiotics to cure the infection and possibly to prevent resistance. But for some common conditions, the recommended course has already been shortened to three days. Public health messages have subtly changed, with Public Health England telling people to take antibiotics “exactly as prescribed” rather than “completing the course”. Prescribers are asked to avoid unnecessarily lengthy durations.

So, calls to shorten antibiotic courses and gather more evidence are not new. But until recently, public discussion of the issue was rare.

Simple messages?

The real controversy provoked by the BMJ article is about what experts should tell the public. The authors suggest that primary care patients prescribed antibiotics for common bacterial infections could be advised to stop when they feel better. Many of their critics fear that such advice is too subjective, and people will be confused by experts disagreeing or departing from an established message. The Chief Medical Officer has reiterated that official advice is unchanged: follow what the doctor says.

The notion that experts must convey a simple message is based on the assumption that uncertainty creates anxiety, making people unsure of what to believe or how to act. Since being exposed to divergent views increases uncertainty, it seems to follow that experts must hew to a strict line. But health communication scholars suggest this is too simplistic as people manage and respond to uncertainty in different ways. Some may have good reasons to ignore debates among experts, relying instead on familiar routines that shape their beliefs and behaviour. Others may distrust markers of excessive confidence, finding open discussion more reassuring as it chimes with their own instincts about knowledge.

Even where some reduction in uncertainty is desirable, evidence is not a substitute for judgement. Doing scientific research to address complex matters often increases uncertainty as new evidence raises further questions. Clinical trials data generate their own dilemmas of assessment and interpretation for professionals.

In terms of antibiotic prescribing, one expert argues that trials are needed but clinical judgement will still be important. So evidence of one sort may be valuable but it must be put in context of other evidence and practical objectives. The same principle applies to most issues that experts investigate, from sex differences to the economic impact of Brexit.

Coping with uncertainty

In the case of antibiotic courses, it is unreasonable to expect that new evidence will automatically resolve current uncertainties. Science cannot meet such undue expectations. But this is only a problem in a culture where people expect prescriptions to be based on unshakeable evidence, and where experts cultivate that impression. On other issues such as climate change, where science is invoked to justify particular interventions to the public, we see the same pattern.

Tensions around the public role of science arise partly from the belief that the cultural credibility of expertise rests on communicating in terms of consensus. Whenever new knowledge seems to challenge current consensus, credibility becomes strained. We have recently highlighted how this diverts attention from more urgent practical challenges.

But if conflicting or inconclusive evidence from new science is taken to be the norm rather than the exception, uncertainty would not be a problem to fear or eliminate. Similar points have been made in relation to health communication, where evidence provided by new technologies of screening and testing is often ambiguous.

Promising consensus as derived from scientific evidence is a perilous principle on which to found meaningful engagement between experts and the public. We are better off trying to facilitate improved ways of appraising and coping with entirely normal uncertainties and reasons for disagreement.

Sujatha Raman,Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies, University of Nottingham andWarren Pearce,Faculty Fellow (iHuman), University of Sheffield.

This article was first published on The Conversation.

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Children's Day is not for children alone

It’s also a time for adults to revisit their childhood.

Most adults look at childhood wistfully, as a time when the biggest worry was a scraped knee, every adult was a source of chocolate and every fight lasted only till the next playtime. Since time immemorial, children seem to have nailed the art of being joyful, and adults can learn a thing or two about stress-free living from them. Now it’s that time of the year again when children are celebrated for...simply being children, and let it serve as a timely reminder for adults to board that imaginary time machine and revisit their childhood. If you’re unable to unbuckle yourself from your adult seat, here is some inspiration.

Start small, by doodling at the back page of your to-do diary as a throwback to that ancient school tradition. If you’re more confident, you could even start your own comic strip featuring people in your lives. You can caricaturise them or attribute them animal personalities for the sake of humour. Stuck in a boring meeting? Draw your boss with mouse ears or your coffee with radioactive powers. Just make sure you give your colleagues aliases.

Pull a prank, those not resulting in revenue losses of course. Prank calls, creeping up behind someone…pull them out from your memory and watch as everyone has a good laugh. Dress up a little quirky for work. It’s time you tried those colourful ties, or tastefully mismatched socks. Dress as your favourite cartoon characters someday – it’s as easy as choosing a ponytail-style, drawing a scar on your forehead or converting a bath towel into a cape. Even dinner can be full of childish fun. No, you don’t have to eat spinach if you don’t like it. Use the available cutlery and bust out your favourite tunes. Spoons and forks are good enough for any beat and for the rest, count on your voice to belt out any pitch. Better yet, stream the classic cartoons of your childhood instead of binge watching drama or news; they seem even funnier as an adult. If you prefer reading before bedtime, do a reread of your favourite childhood book(s). You’ll be surprised by their timeless wisdom.

A regular day has scope for childhood indulgences in every nook and cranny. While walking down a lane, challenge your friend to a non-stop game of hopscotch till the end of the tiled footpath. If you’re of a petite frame, insist on a ride in the trolley as you about picking items in the supermarket. Challenge your fellow gym goers and trainers to a hula hoop routine, and beat ‘em to it!

Children have an incredible ability to be completely immersed in the moment during play, and acting like one benefits adults too. Just count the moments of precious laughter you will have added to your day in the process. So, take time to indulge yourself and celebrate life with child-like abandon, as the video below shows.


This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of SBI Life and not by the Scroll editorial team.