New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

A Simple Way to Slash Unnecessary Drug Prescriptions

A new approach may help curb unnecessary prescriptions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Antibiotics kill bacteria, not the viruses that cause the common cold and the flu. Yet doctors frequently overprescribe them—out of habit or to satisfy patients' demands—fueling antibiotic resistance.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that up to 50 percent of antibiotic prescriptions in the U.S. are unnecessary or not optimally effective as prescribed.

One new approach may help curb the drugs' overuse. A recent randomized controlled study reported that having clinicians sign a letter pledging to “avoid prescribing antibiotics when they are likely to do more harm than good” reduced inappropriate antibiotic use during flu season. Pledged physicians reduced prescribed antibiotics by about one third compared with unpledged ones. The findings appeared online January 27 in JAMA Internal Medicine.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the study, seven clinicians—doctors or nurse-practitioners—signed a poster-size commitment to follow prescription guidelines. The letter, which was displayed in exam rooms, also explained that antibiotics cannot cure colds but do cause side effects and contribute to drug resistance. Seven other clinicians served as controls and did not sign a letter or alter their normal practices.

Providers who signed the commitment letter reduced unnecessary prescriptions by about one fifth during the intervention period, whereas those who did not sign a poster increased their inappropriate prescribing rates by about one fifth. Still, even the poster-signing clinicians appear to have provided antibiotics to patients who did not need them roughly one third of the time.

Previous studies have looked at the effects of posting guideline reminders, but they did not include signed commitment letters and did not report the same level of success. “Our hypothesis is that this commitment device is a key difference between our intervention and past work,” asserts lead author Daniella Meeker, a scientist at Rand Corporation who focuses on health and behavioral economics.

The study does not settle the matter. The findings need to be replicated with a larger group of physicians. Yet if the approach triggers similar responses in other settings, the authors say it could theoretically eliminate 2.6 million unnecessary prescriptions and save $70.4 million in drug costs nationwide.

Dina Fine Maron, formerly an associate editor at Scientific American, is now a wildlife trade investigative reporter at National Geographic.

More by Dina Fine Maron
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Antibiotic Overkill” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 4 (), p. 32
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0414-32

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe