ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Quality, availability and suitability of antimicrobial stewardship guidance: a multinational qualitative study.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes are established across the world to treat infections efficiently, prioritize patient safety, and reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. One of the core elements of AMS programmes is guidance to support and direct physicians in making efficient, safe and optimal decisions when prescribing antibiotics. To optimize and tailor AMS, we need a better understanding of prescribing physicians' experience with AMS guidance. Objectives: To explore the prescribing physicians' user experience, needs and targeted improvements of AMS guidance in hospital settings. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 prescribing physicians/AMS guidance users from hospital settings in Canada, Germany, Israel, Latvia, Norway and Sweden as a part of the international PILGRIM trial. A socioecological model was applied as an overarching conceptual framework for the study. Results: Research participants were seeking more AMS guidance than is currently available to them. The most important aspects and targets for improvement of AMS guidance were: (i) quality of guidelines; (ii) availability of infectious diseases specialists; and (iii) suitability of AMS guidance to department context. Conclusions: Achieving prudent antibiotic use not only depends on individual and collective levels of commitment to follow AMS guidance but also on the quality, availability and suitability of the guidance itself. More substantial commitment from stakeholders is needed to allocate the required resources for delivering high-quality, available and relevant AMS guidance to make sure that the prescribers' AMS needs are met.
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.