Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38507232›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2024

A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England.

Rebecca Knowles, Clare Chandler, Stephen O'Neill, Mike Sharland, Nicholas Mays

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Point prevalence survey of antibiotics in a pediatric tertiary hospital in the Republic of Panama.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Rebecca KnowlesDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1244-1706
Clare ChandlerDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stephen O'NeillDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Mike SharlandCentre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Nicholas MaysDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

ESRC ES/P000592/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013-2022).

methodsA systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013-2018), National Action Plan (2019-2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014-2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions' effectiveness were extracted.

findingsFour hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12).Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals.

conclusionsMany interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England's decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipHealth PolicyDrug UtilizationEnglandHumansPrimary Health CareSecondary Health CareAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID38507232
PMCPMC11144483

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.