Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38578613›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2024

Coming of age: governance challenges in updated AMR national action plans in the EU.

Daniel E Carelli, Josefin B Ogne, Jon Pierre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Daniel E CarelliDepartment of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Josefin B OgneSchool of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jon PierreDepartment of Political Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1523-3603

Funding

Swedish Research Council 2018-01330The Swedish Research Council 2018-01330
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational action plans (NAPs) are key instruments for governing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In Europe, we can now observe many countries updating their NAPs which raise two key research questions; what substantial modifications are states opting for, and how do they wish to address challenges related to AMR governance in a comparative perspective?

methodsBuilding on a previous analytical classification, we address these two questions by examining data of updated versions of NAPs in 13 European Union member states covering seventeen elements related to AMR governance.

resultsOur results substantiate the large variation with regard to both substantive issues and governance-related matters. Most tellingly, they highlight the growing importance of the One Health approach in updated versions of NAPs. Our analysis also shows that while substantive issues remain important, One Health and the coordination and collaboration issues it entails are becoming more salient in the second or third generation of NAPs.

conclusionsUpdated NAPs suggest that EU member states are becoming increasingly knowledgeable on the causes and consequences of AMR and how it needs to be addressed. The enhanced level of knowledge also leads these countries to address the next set of issues and challenges; to improve domestic and international coordination and collaboration. Thus, the revised NAPs present a noticeable development from substantive issues towards governance issues.

Indexed as

European UnionAntimicrobial StewardshipDrug Resistance, MicrobialHealth PolicyHumans

Identifiers

PMID38578613
PMCPMC11430912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.