ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Self-reported knowledge attitude and practice of healthcare professionals in the management of infection and antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, Practices, and Attitudes Regarding Antimicrobial Resistance and Antibiotic Use Among Hospital Staff: Findings from a Two-Round Cross-Sectional Survey in an Italian Tertiary Care Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions of Antimicrobial Resistance in Brazil: Insights from a Nationwide Online Survey.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Self-reported knowledge attitude and practice of healthcare professionals in the management of infection and antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review synthesizes studies on health and social care professionals' (HCPs) knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) related to infection management, prevention, antimicrobial use, stewardship and resistance, to inform future research and policy. Method: In January 2024, a comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and CINAHL to identify relevant studies on HCPs' KAP in infection management and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). After deduplication, initial screening was done using Rayyan, with 10% checked for accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed full texts, and data extraction was verified by another reviewer. Quality assessment was conducted by one reviewer, with 20% of studies double-checked. Studies published from 2016 onwards, focusing on the UK and comparable settings, were included. A narrative synthesis was performed due to heterogeneity between studies. Results: Of 10 990 records, 113 studies were included. KAP measures varied, complicating direct comparisons. Some studies assessed objective knowledge while most measured perceived knowledge, revealling discrepancies between the two. While most participants acknowledged the harms of inappropriate antimicrobial use, willingness to engage in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) varied by profession. Practice behaviour assessment indicated varying hand-hygiene compliance and AMS implementation, along with significant concerns about inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Conclusion: The review highlights significant gaps in HCPs' KAP regarding infection prevention and AMS, with variations across professions. This underscores the need for targeted interventions. Additionally, standardized KAP assessment measures are essential to enhance comparability across different contexts. These findings provide a foundation for future research and policy initiatives aimed at combating AMR.
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.