Online Commentary During the Physical Examination

A Communication Tool for Avoiding Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing?

Published in: Social Science and Medicine, v. 56, no. 2, Jan. 2003, p. 313-320

Posted on on December 31, 2002

by Rita Mangione-Smith, Tanya Stivers, Marc N. Elliott, Laurie L. McDonald, John Heritage

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

A previously identified communication behavior, online commentary, is physician talk that describes what he/she is seeing, feeling, or hearing during the physical examination of the patient. The investigators who identified this communication behavior hypothesized that its use may be associated with successful physician resistance to perceived or actual patient expectations for inappropriate antibiotic medication. This paper examines the relationship between actual and perceived parental expectations for antibiotics and physician use of online commentary as well as the relationship between online commentary use and the physician's prescribing decision. The authors conducted a prospective observational study in two private pediatric practices. Study procedures included a pre-visit parent survey, audiotaping of study consultations, and post-visit surveys of the participating physicians. Ten pediatricians participated (participation RATE=77%) and 306 eligible parents participated (participation RATE=86%) who were attending sick visits for their children with upper respiratory tract infections between October 1996 and March 1997. The main outcomes measured were the proportion of consultations with online commentary and the proportion of consultations where antibiotics were prescribed. Two primary types of online commentaries were observed: (1) online commentary suggestive of a problematic finding on physical examination that might require antibiotic treatment ('problem' online commentary), e.g., That cough sounds very chesty; and (2) online commentary that indicated the physical examination findings were not problematic and antibiotics were probably not necessary (`no problem' online commentary), e.g., Her throat is only slightly red. For presumed viral cases where the physician thought the parent expected to receive antibiotics, if the physician used at least some `problem' online commentary, he/she prescribed antibiotics in 91% (10/11) of cases. Conversely, when the physician exclusively employed `no problem' online commentary, antibiotics were prescribed 27% (4/15) of the time (p=0.07). Use of `no problem' online commentary did not add significantly to visit length. `No problem' online commentary is a communication technique that may provide an effective and efficient method for resisting perceived expectations to prescribe antibiotics.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.