Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31945117›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Surveys of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in general population: A systematic review.

Hathairat Kosiyaporn, Sunicha Chanvatik, Tibet Issaramalai, Wanwisa Kaewkhankhaeng, Anond Kulthanmanusorn, Nithiwat Saengruang, Woranan Witthayapipopsakul, Shaheda Viriyathorn, Supapat Kirivan, Watinee Kunpeuk and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Prevalence and correlates of oral antibiotic use in Canada.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2024
    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

13 authors.

Hathairat KosiyapornInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-7203-8089
Sunicha ChanvatikInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Tibet IssaramalaiInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Wanwisa KaewkhankhaengInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Anond KulthanmanusornInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-9855-1681
Nithiwat SaengruangInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Woranan WitthayapipopsakulInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Shaheda ViriyathornInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Supapat KirivanInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Watinee KunpeukInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8670-0806
Rapeepong SuphanchaimatInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Angkana LekagulInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Viroj TangcharoensathienInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-3235-0091

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, various tools exist to evaluate knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and are applied by various organizations. Previous systematic reviews have focused mainly on study findings such as levels of knowledge and AMR awareness. However, the survey procedures and data instruments used ought to be scrutinized as well, since they are important contributors to credible results. This review aims to assess the study methods and procedures of existing population-based surveys and explore key components which determine the general population's levels of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and AMR.

methodsWe searched existing literature for population -based surveys which sought knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use or AMR in the general population. Databases searched included Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus, domestic journals and gray literature sources. Population-based cross-sectional studies published in English or Thai from January 2000 to December 2018 were included in the review. Quality assessment was conducted using the 'Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies' (AXIS).

resultsAll 22 studies included in the analysis had clear objectives focusing on assessing people's levels of knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behavior relating to antibiotic use and awareness of AMR. These studies had employed appropriate methodologies for population-based cross-sectional surveys relative to research questions. More than half of studies (14 out of 22) had scientifically soundly designed methodologies which captured the representativeness of the population; whereas the remaining studies had unclear sample size estimations, inappropriate sample frames and selection biases. Half of the studies had tested the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The common questions used by these surveys were categorized into four themes: behavior related to antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of AMR and others such as receiving information about antibiotic use and AMR or cross-cutting issues like self-medication.

conclusionThis review identified four key features of good practices in antibiotic use and awareness surveys: a) clear survey objective; b) scientifically sound sampling techniques ensuring representativeness; c) strategies for recruitment of samples and survey administration methods; and d) credible measurement to prevent non-sampling biases. During questionnaire design, the health systems context in terms of access to health services and antibiotics should be taken into account. In conclusion, to maximize the use of surveys, the application of findings in surveys and associated factors related to antibiotic use and AMR should primarily generate public health interventions and target specific groups to make progress in solving AMR problems.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, MicrobialAnti-Bacterial AgentsAwarenessBacterial InfectionsDatabases, FactualDrug Resistance, BacterialHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesThailandAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31945117
PMCPMC6964876

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.