ArticleInternational health2026
Antimicrobial stewardship interventions currently implemented at primary healthcare settings across low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICS).
Article in International health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibiotic dispensing practices and determinants among informal healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed-methods scoping review.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Strengthening healthcare systems to prevent antimicrobial resistance in LMICs: it is time to act.Journal of global health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a top global public health and development threat. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMSPs) are one of the most cost-effective interventions to optimize the use of antimicrobials. This study reviews AMSPs that have been implemented in low- and lower middle-income countries.
methodsA systematic search was conducted on electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, OVID, Web of Science and Cochrane Library on 18 July 2024 for published papers from 2014 to 2024 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Relevant published literature was then selected based on the established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each article was screened by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and synthesized in the review.
resultsOf the 425 articles screened, only 13 were eligible for review and included in this study. Two studies were multinationals. Five studies were randomized controlled trials. Among the three key focuses of AMSPs, most of the interventions focused on optimizing antibiotic use (n=8), followed by improving diagnostics and monitoring (n=3) and education and training (n=2). The most commonly reported barriers to implementing AMSPs was a lack of resources (n=9). Facilitators reported included knowledge of AMS (n=8), availability of educational and training resources (n=8), adequate funding (n=6), accountable and transparent procedures (n=5) and positive communication within healthcare facilities (n=4).
conclusionsAll included studies show improvement in AMS through innovative programs. However, only a few have been adopted nationwide and influence policy formulation in the country. We recommend adoption of effective AMSPs into the national strategic planning and implementation across primary health settings.
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.