ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Exploring UK medical schools' perception and intent for teaching on antimicrobial resistance and stewardship.
Article 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 1 paper.
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.
- Comment on: Exploring UK medical schools' perception and intent for teaching on antimicrobial resistance and stewardship.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a key global public health threat. Developing healthcare worker awareness and knowledge in AMR and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are UK national action plan targets. Competency frameworks have been developed to support improved undergraduate teaching, but their uptake is unclear. Methods: A targeted survey was sent to all UK medical schools to determine curriculum learning objectives (LOs) on AMR/AMS and distribution of teaching opportunities across courses. Replies were mapped to the six McMaster competency framework domains to identify areas of strength and potential gaps in undergraduate teaching models. Results: Replies were received from 50/52 (96.2%) medical schools. AMR/AMS teaching through dedicated teaching sessions was offered by 32/50 (64.0%), whereas 11/50 (22.0%) had fully integrated courses and 7/50 (14.0%) were unable to identify any LOs. Data on dedicated teaching provision (mean 7.7 h/course, IQR 3.0-10.5) were provided by 32/50 (64.0%). Evidence for mapping to the McMaster competencies was highly variable, ranging from 1/50 (2.0%) to 35/50 (70.0%) across the six key domains. Where identified, mapping to knowledge-based competencies was observed to be significantly greater than to practical-based competencies (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-4.1, Conclusions: Current approaches to UK undergraduate AMR/AMS medical education appear limited, with greater focus on knowledge-based competencies and less focus on practical skills. Reliance on opportunistic teaching in clinical years presents challenges for programme assurance and impact assessment. Minimizing unwanted variability in medical school teaching and learning in AMR/AMS should be pursued, and inclusion in the UK Medical Licensing Assessment content map may provide such an opportunity.
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.