ArticleBMJ open2025
Antimicrobial prophylaxis for endourological procedures in Jordanian hospitals: a multi-centre qualitative study.
Article in BMJ 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore urologists' perceptions of barriers to, and facilitators of, adherence to international antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) guidelines for endourological procedures in Jordan and to identify strategies to optimise guideline-concordant AP prescribing.
designThe present study is a qualitative study undertaken through semi-structured interviews and inductive thematic analysis. Study results are reported per Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.
settingSecondary and tertiary care across multiple public, private and academic hospitals in Jordan.
participantsNineteen practising urologists (all male; median age 32 years, IQR 8; nine residents, 10 specialists) who routinely prescribe AP for endourological procedures. Participants were recruited via convenience snowball sampling and interviewed until thematic saturation was reached.
interventionsNot applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were themes describing perceived barriers to guideline adherence and potential facilitators to support appropriate AP use.
resultsParticipants identified several barriers: (1) patient level, strong expectations for antibiotics post-procedure and concerns about procedure-site hygiene; (2) clinician level, fear of postoperative infections and litigation, lack of familiarity with updated guidance and doubts about applying international guidelines locally; (3) system level, hierarchical prescribing dynamics, referral communication gaps, high workloads and time pressures, and concerns over sterilisation practices. Facilitators included targeted professional training and regular guideline updates for urologists, development of local AP guidelines informed by local resistance data, enhanced patient education campaigns and active involvement of clinical pharmacists in preoperative antibiotic review and auditing.
conclusionsUrologists in Jordan face multifaceted barriers to AP guideline adherence. Future stewardship programmes can use insights from this study to develop locally tailored guidelines, targeted clinician training and pharmacist-led audits. Pilot testing with metrics such as prescribing rates, guideline concordance, antibiotic consumption and postoperative infection incidence will be essential to validate their impact before wider implementation.
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.