ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Understanding antimicrobial resistance education among medical and?veterinary students in Norway: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global health threat requiring effective education for future prescribers. Despite its urgency, there is limited evidence about how future prescribers are educated to mitigate AMR. Objectives: To investigate associations between AMR knowledge and (i) preferred teaching methods, (ii) self-reported competency, and (iii) recall of AMR-related curricular content among Norwegian medical and veterinary students. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 110 students (61 medical, 49 veterinary) from two Norwegian universities assessed knowledge, preferred teaching methods, self-reported competency and self-reported curricular coverage. Bivariate analyses and multivariable linear regression identified associations with knowledge. Results: Formal lectures, guidelines, lab-based teaching and bedside teaching were the most preferred learning methods. Students reported that lab-based teaching had contributed to their learning about AMR, scoring higher on AMR knowledge (β = 0.89, Conclusions: The findings highlight a disconnect, where confidence does not equate to knowledge, and exposure to the curriculum alone is insufficient to ensure clinical competence. AMR knowledge is associated with perceptions about lab-based learning, and misplaced confidence in specific skills. Antifungal-related topics require more attention in curricula.
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.