Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35030191›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Comparing public attitudes, knowledge, beliefs and behaviours towards antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in Australia, United Kingdom, and Sweden (2010-2021): A systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparative policy analysis.

Olivia Hawkins, Anna Mae Scott, Amy Montgomery, Bevan Nicholas, Judy Mullan, Antoine van Oijen, Chris Degeling

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Carbapenem-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Olivia HawkinsAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, The Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Anna Mae ScottInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Amy MontgomerySchool of Nursing, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7720-9513
Bevan NicholasIllawarra-Shoalhaven Local Health District, NSW Health, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8168-4525
Judy MullanCentre for Health Research Illawarra Shoalhaven Population, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Antoine van OijenMolecular Horizons, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, The Faculty of the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-3443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial and behavioural drivers of inappropriate antibiotic use contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Recent reports indicate the Australian community consumes more than twice the defined daily doses (DDD) of antibiotics per 1000 population than in Sweden, and about 20% more than in the United Kingdom (UK). We compare measures of public knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) surrounding AMR in Australia, the UK and Sweden against the policy approaches taken in these settings to address inappropriate antibiotic use.

methodsNational antimicrobial stewardship policies in Australia, Sweden, and the UK were reviewed, supplemented by empirical studies of their effectiveness. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases for primary studies of the general public's KAP around antibiotic use and AMR in each setting (January 1 2011 until July 30 2021). Where feasible, we meta-analysed data on the proportion of participants agreeing with identical or very similar survey questions, using a random effects model.

resultsPolicies in Sweden enact tighter control of community antibiotic use; reducing antibiotic use through public awareness raising is not a priority. Policies in the UK and Australia are more reliant on practitioner and public education to encourage appropriate antibiotic use. 26 KAP were included in the review and 16 were meta-analysable. KAP respondents in Australia and the UK are consistently more likely to report beliefs and behaviours that are not aligned with appropriate antibiotic use, compared to participants in similar studies conducted in Sweden.

conclusionsInteractions between public knowledge, attitudes and their impacts on behaviours surrounding community use of antibiotics are complex and contingent. Despite a greater focus on raising public awareness in Australia and the UK, neither antibiotic consumption nor community knowledge and attitudes are changing significantly. Clearly public education campaigns can contribute to mitigating AMR. However, the relative success of policy approaches taken in Sweden suggests that practice level interventions may also be required to activate prescribers and the communities they serve to make substantive reductions in inappropriate antibiotic use.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial StewardshipDrug Resistance, BacterialHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePublic OpinionAnti-Bacterial AgentsAustraliaHumansSwedenUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID35030191
PMCPMC8759643

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.