Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31367344›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2019

Cross-border comparison of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and AMR prevention measures: the healthcare workers' perspective.

J Keizer, L M A Braakman-Jansen, S Kampmeier, R Köck, N Al Naiemi, R Te Riet-Warning, N Beerlage-De Jong, K Becker, J E W C Van Gemert-Pijnen

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2019. 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 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Opinions of Medical Staff Regarding Antibiotic Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Profiles of multidrug-resistant organisms among patients with bacteremia in intensive care units: an international ID-IRI survey.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

J Keizer1Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0080-436X
L M A Braakman-Jansen1Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
S Kampmeier2Institute of Hygiene, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
R Köck2Institute of Hygiene, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
N Al Naiemi5Department of Infection Prevention, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo/Hengelo, Netherlands.
R Te Riet-Warning5Department of Infection Prevention, Hospital Group Twente, Almelo/Hengelo, Netherlands.
N Beerlage-De Jong1Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
K Becker3Institute of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
J E W C Van Gemert-Pijnen1Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing Research, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cross-border healthcare may promote the spread of multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDRO) and is challenging due to heterogeneous antimicrobial resistance (AMR) prevention measures (APM). The aim of this article is to compare healthcare workers (HCW) from Germany (DE) and The Netherlands (NL) on how they perceive and experience AMR and APM, which is important for safe patient exchange and effective cross-border APM cooperation. Methods: A survey was conducted amongst HCW ( Results: Similarities between DE and NL were a high awareness about the AMR problem and the perception that the possibility to cope with AMR is limited (30% respondents perceive their contribution to limit AMR as insufficient). Especially Dutch nurses scored significantly lower than German nurses on their contribution to limit AMR (means 2.6 vs. 3.1, Conclusions: Although both German and Dutch HCW are aware of the AMR problem, they should be more empowered to contribute to limiting AMR through APM (i.e. screening diagnostics, infection diagnosis, treatment and infection control) in their daily working routines. The observed differences reflect differences in local, national and cross-border structures, and differences in needs of HCW, that need to be considered for safe patient exchange and effective cross-border APM.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAdultAgedAntimicrobial StewardshipCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansInfection ControlMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsNurse's RolePhysician's RolePractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesAntimicrobial resistance (AMR)Cross-borderEuroregionGermanyHealthcare workerInfection controlMultidrug-resistant microorganismsNetherlandsPrevention

Identifiers

PMID31367344
PMCPMC6647090

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.