Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31756224›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Pathways to antibiotics in Bangladesh: A qualitative study investigating how and when households access medicine including antibiotics for humans or animals when they are ill.

Patricia Jane Lucas, Mohammad Rofi Uddin, Nirnita Khisa, S M Salim Akter, Leanne Unicomb, Papreen Nahar, Mohammad Aminul Islam, Fosiul Alam Nizame, Emily K Rousham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Patricia Jane LucasSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0469-8085
Mohammad Rofi UddinInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Nirnita KhisaInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
S M Salim AkterInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Leanne UnicombInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Papreen NaharBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Mohammad Aminul IslamInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0001-5107-5289
Fosiul Alam NizameInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Emily K RoushamCentre for Global Health and Human Development, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GBLoughborough University · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo understand how to reduce antibiotic use, greater knowledge is needed about the complexities of access in countries with loose regulation or enforcement. This study aimed to explore how households in Bangladesh were accessing antimicrobials for themselves and their domestic animals.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 48 households in one urban and one rural area. Households were purposively sampled from two lower income strata, prioritising those with under 5-year olds, older adults, household animals and minority groups. Households where someone was currently ill with a suspected infection (13 households) were invited for a follow-up interview. Framework analysis was used to explore access to healthcare and medicines.

findingsPeople accessed medicines for themselves through five pathways: drugs shops, private clinics, government/charitable hospitals, community/family planning clinics, and specialised/private hospitals. Drug shops provided direct access to medicines for common, less serious and acute illnesses. For persistent or serious illnesses, the healthcare pathway may include contacts with several of these settings, but often relied on medicines provided by drug shops. In the 13 households with an unwell family member, most received at least one course of antibiotics for this illness. Multiple and incomplete dosing were common even when prescribed by a qualified doctor. Antibiotics were identified by their high cost compared to other medicines. Cost was a reported barrier to purchasing full courses of antibiotics. Few households in the urban area kept household animals. In this rural area, government animal health workers provided most care for large household animals (cows), but drug shops were also important.

conclusionsIn Bangladesh, unregulated drug shops provide an essential route to medicines including those prescribed in the formal sector. Wherever licensed suppliers are scarce and expensive, regulations which prohibit this supply risk removing access entirely for many people.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBangladeshFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePrescription Drug OveruseQualitative ResearchRural PopulationUrban PopulationAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31756224
PMCPMC6874326
OpenAlexW2989758651

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.