Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39653421›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2025

Perception of antimicrobial stewardship interventions in Swiss primary care: a mixed-methods survey.

Simeon Schaad, Jelena Dunaiceva, Arnaud Peytremann, Sophie Gendolla, Lauren Clack, Catherine Plüss-Suard, Anne Niquille, Anna Nicolet, Joachim Marti, Noémie Boillat-Blanco and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Simeon SchaadUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland simeon.schaad@unisante.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3110-071X
Jelena DunaicevaUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Arnaud PeytremannUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sophie GendollaInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lauren ClackInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland.
Catherine Plüss-SuardSwiss Centre for Antibiotic Resistance (ANRESIS), Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Anne NiquilleUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Ambulatory Care, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Anna NicoletDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Unisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joachim MartiDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Systems, Unisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Noémie Boillat-BlancoInfectious Diseases Service, Department of Medicine, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Aline WolfensbergerInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich Faculty of Medicine, Zurich, Switzerland.
Yolanda MuellerUnisanté, University Center for Primary Care and Public Health, Department of Family Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith most antibiotic prescriptions occurring in primary care, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions must be known, welcomed, and used by primary care physicians (PCPs).

aimThe main objective of this study was to evaluate the present awareness about, use of, and perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a broad range of interventions. DESIGN &

settingA cross-sectional survey was distributed to Swiss PCPs from December 2023 to February 2024.

methodThe survey focused on eight AMS interventions: shared decision-making tools, factsheets for physicians, Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) information material, national antibiotic guidelines website, audit and feedback, communication skills training, as well as the use of point-of-care C-reactive protein (POC-CRP) and procalcitonin (POC-PCT) to guide prescription. PCPs' perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were assessed using 5-point Likert scales. General expectations regarding AMS were evaluated via qualitative analysis of free-text answers.

resultsOut of 7456 potentially eligible primary care physicians, 355 PCPs answered at least one question (response rate 4.7%). PCPs were most aware of biomarkers to guide antibiotic prescription in respiratory tract infections (RTIs), such as POC-PCT (67.6%) and POC-CRP (61.1%); the FOPH awareness campaign (57.3%); and the national guidelines website (52.7%). All interventions were rated as acceptable, appropriate, and feasible, with respective mean scores out of five of 3.89, 3.91, and 3.81.

conclusionDespite the high perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of AMS interventions available for RTIs, their real-life impact may be hindered by insufficient awareness. Additional promotion of those tools could increase their uptake by physicians.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial stewardshipimplementationprimary care

Identifiers

PMID39653421
PMCPMC12421261

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.