Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33822953›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy and planning2021

Improving antibiotic use through behaviour change: a systematic review of interventions evaluated in low- and middle-income countries.

Carla Cuevas, Neha Batura, Luh Putu Lila Wulandari, Mishal Khan, Virginia Wiseman

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy and planning, 2021. 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 47 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carla CuevasCentre for Global Health Economics, Institute for Global Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.
Neha BaturaCentre for Global Health Economics, Institute for Global Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8175-8125
Luh Putu Lila WulandariThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Level 6, Wallace Wurth BuildingHigh Street, UNSW Australia. Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia.
Mishal KhanDepartment of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Virginia WisemanThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Level 6, Wallace Wurth BuildingHigh Street, UNSW Australia. Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance (ABR) has been identified as a critical threat to global health at the highest policy fora. A leading cause of ABR is the inappropriate use of antibiotics by both patients and healthcare providers. Although countries around the world have committed to developing and implementing national action plans to tackle ABR, there is a considerable gap in evidence about effective behaviour change interventions addressing inappropriate use of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where ABR is growing at an alarming rate. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behaviour change interventions to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics in LMICs. Three databases were searched using a set of predefined search terms and exclusion criteria. The search identified 43 relevant articles. A narrative synthesis of results was conducted using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to categorize intervention components. The majority of the reviewed studies were set in lower-middle-income or low-income countries located in Sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia and the Pacific. Twenty-four articles evaluated multi-faceted interventions over a period of 12 months or less. Despite the widespread use of antibiotics in the community, interventions were primarily implemented in public health facilities, targeting health professionals such as doctors, nurses, and other allied medical staff. Although education for providers was the most widely used strategy for influencing antibiotic use, it was shown to be most effective when used in conjunction with training or other enabling and supportive measures to nudge behaviour. Six articles included an evaluation of costs of interventions and found a reduction in costs in inpatient and outpatient settings, and one article found a training and guidelines implementation-based intervention to be highly cost-effective. However, the small number of articles conducting an economic evaluation highlights the need for such analyses to be conducted more frequently to support priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDeveloping CountriesDrug Resistance, MicrobialHealth PersonnelHumansPovertyAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic usebehaviour changeLMICssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33822953
PMCPMC8488384

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.