ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
A systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship education for undergraduate students in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary science and midwifery using COM-B framework.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. 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.
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 and Objective: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health challenge driven by inappropriate prescribing. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) education during undergraduate training is important to prepare future healthcare professionals for responsible prescribing, yet provision remains inconsistent across disciplines. To systematically review AMS educational interventions for undergraduate medical, pharmacy, nursing, dental, veterinary and midwifery students, and evaluate the behavioural coverage using the COM-B framework. Methods: A protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420250655653). Six databases were searched on 4 February 2025. Eligible studies evaluated AMS educational interventions for undergraduate students. Data were independently extracted in duplicate, methodological quality appraised using Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and findings were synthesized narratively using COM-B. Results: Of 7771 records screened, 42 studies were included, involving 8567 students across six continents. Most were single-group pre-/post-designs, with two randomized controlled trials. All studies addressed psychological capability, mainly by increasing knowledge and reasoning, while reflective motivation was supported in 25/42. Physical opportunity (20/42) and social opportunity (18/42) were less frequent, typically via structured cases or teamwork. Physical capability (9/42) and automatic motivation (2/42) were least represented, usually through simulation, supervised practice or affective engagement. MERSQI scores indicated moderate methodological quality overall. Conclusions: Undergraduate AMS education is widespread but uneven in its coverage, with emphasis on knowledge and limited attention to skills, opportunities and motivation. Applying COM-B highlights the need for curricula to combine knowledge with rehearsal, authentic resources, teamwork, identity development and positive engagement to prepare graduates for stewardship practice.
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.