Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693462›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

The Antibiotic Guardian campaign: a qualitative evaluation of an online pledge-based system focused on making better use of antibiotics.

Joanna May Kesten, Alex Bhattacharya, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Maya Gobin, Suzanne Audrey

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. A qualitative investigation of perceptions towards antibiotics by members of the public after choosing to pledge as an Antibiotic Guardian.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joanna May KestenThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Jo.Kesten@bristol.ac.uk.
Alex BhattacharyaAntimicrobial Resistance Programme, Public Health England, London, UK.
Diane Ashiru-OredopeAntimicrobial Resistance Programme, Public Health England, London, UK.
Maya GobinThe National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Evaluation of Interventions, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Suzanne AudreySchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Antibiotic Guardian Campaign was developed to increase commitment to reducing Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), change behaviour and increase knowledge through an online pledge system for healthcare professionals and members of the public to become Antibiotic Guardians (AG). This qualitative evaluation aimed to understand AG experiences of the campaign and perceived impact on behaviour.

methodsNinety-four AGs (48 via a survey and 46 who had agreed to future contact) were invited to participate in a telephone semi-structured interview. The sample was based on self-identification as a healthcare professional or a member of the public, pledge group (e.g. adults, primary care prescribers etc.), pledge and gender. Interviews explored how participants became aware of the campaign, reasons for joining, pledge choices, responses to joining and views about the campaign's implementation. Interviews were analysed using the Framework Method.

resultsTwenty-two AGs (10 healthcare professionals and 12 members of the public) were interviewed. AGs became aware of the campaign through professional networks and social media, and were motivated to join by personal and professional concern for AMR. Choice of pledge group and pledge were attributed to relevance and potential impact on AMR and the behaviour of others through pledge enactment and promotion of the campaign. Most AGs could not recall their pledge unprompted. Most felt they fulfilled their pledge, although this reflected either behaviour change or the pledge reinforcing pre-existing behaviour. The campaign triggered AGs to reflect on AMR related behaviour and reinforced pre-existing beliefs. Several AGs promoted the campaign to others. Responding collectively as part of the campaign was thought to have a greater impact than individual action. However, limited campaign visibility was observed and the campaign was perceived to have restricted ability to reach those unaware of AMR.

conclusionsAGs were motivated to reduce AMR and most felt they fulfilled their pledges although for many this appeared to be through reinforcement of existing behaviours. We recommend that the campaign engages those without pre-existing knowledge of AMR by increasing its visibility, capitalising on the diffusion of its message and including more awareness-raising content for those with limited AMR knowledge.

Indexed as

AwarenessDrug PrescriptionsDrug Resistance, MicrobialHealth PromotionAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePerceptionPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareSocial MediaSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibioticAntimicrobial resistanceBehaviour changeEvaluationPledge systemPublic healthQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID28693462
PMCPMC5504645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.