ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2022
An Evaluation of Antibiotic Prescription Rationality at Lower Primary Healthcare Facilities in Three Districts of South-Western Uganda.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the appropriateness of prescribing antibiotics among persons with HIV (PWH) in an Urban HIV outpatient clinic in Uganda.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Antimicrobial resistance is now one of the leading five causes of death globally. This study evaluated the rationality of antibiotic prescriptions at lower primary care levels in three districts of Southwestern Uganda. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study reviewed 9899 antibiotic prescriptions at 39 health centers following a drug delivery cycle by National Medical Stores in three phases (19 days each on average). Phase 1 started 3 days after delivery, mid-way (Phase 2) and towards the end (Phase 3). The proportion of rationally prescribed antibiotics was determined using a modified criterion by Badar and in reference to Uganda Clinical Guidelines (UCG). Using multivariate logistic regression, the factors associated with rational prescription were determined with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Seven of every 10 antibiotic prescriptions were irrational. Half the prescriptions were made by unauthorized personnel (nurses) and many of the pediatric prescriptions (916, 46.5%) did not bear body weight measurements to guide appropriate dosing. Also, the proportion of rational prescriptions in reference to UCG, 2016 was very low (3387, 34.2%). However, a high proportion of antibiotic prescriptions were legibly written (9462, 95.7%), prescribed by generic names (9083, 91.8%) and had a diagnosis (9677, 97.8%) indicated. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that; availability of medicines (phase 1) (phase 2 AOR=1.14, 95% CI:1.02-1.28, phase 3, AOR=1.23, 95% CI:1.1-1.38), legibly written prescription (AOR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.47-0.78), indication of a date on the prescription (AOR=0.56, 95% CI0.38-0.81) and being a medical officer were factors associated with rational antibiotic prescription. Conclusion: We observed a high rate of irrational prescription in the study sites and the majority of these were by unauthorized personnel. A review of antibiotic use policies and focused interventions is crucial in these settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.