ArticleBMJ open2024
Physician's perception and practices on antimicrobial resistance in a tertiary care hospital in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antibiotics Use Patterns in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health and development concern. Antimicrobial misuse and overuse are key contributors to the emergence of drug-resistant infections.
objectiveThe current study aimed to determine the level of perception and practices of physicians regarding AMR in a tertiary-level hospital.
designCross-sectional study.
settingA tertiary care hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
participantsThe study included 360 physicians who worked for more than 6 months in different departments of the hospital. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions of AMR among physicians and secondary outcome measures were to find out the practices of physicians regarding AMR. The current study used 8 defined responses and 6 multiple-choice questions for scoring physicians' perception of AMR and 12 items to score physicians' self-reported practice regarding AMR. After converting these scores into percentages, the median split method was used to categorise them into poor and good categories.
resultsAmong 360 physicians, 51% were male, the median (IQR) age was 30 (27.0-34.0) years and 46% had private practices. More than half (52%) had a poor perception of AMR but had good practice (57%) with no significant association between perception and practice. The perception of AMR was significantly associated with age (p=0.048), years in practice (p=0.011) and AMR training (p=0.030). Physicians with private practice had 1.71 times higher odds of having a good perception of AMR (95% CI 2.07 to 2.75, p=0.026) and 2.44 times higher odds of having good practice (95% CI 1.51 to 3.94, p<0.001). The odds of having a good perception of AMR increase 1.20 times with a 1-year increase in years of practice (95% CI 1.01 to 1.44, p=0.042).
conclusionThe study revealed that most physicians had poor perception but good practice regarding AMR. Both poor perception and good practice were associated with private practice. To increase good practice and perception regarding AMR, efforts need to be made to establish an AMR education programme for practicing physicians as soon as possible. Moreover, medical audits and continuous quality improvement (such as programmes for antimicrobial stewardship) should be legislated, and monitoring prescribing behaviour and formulating policies accordingly are the way forward in combating AMR.
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.