ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
Contextual analysis of antibiotic prescribing practices for upper respiratory infections and diarrhoea in rural Punjab, Pakistan.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major global public health threat, with deaths projected to reach 10 million annually by 2050, disproportionately affecting LMICs. Almost 80% of prescriptions at primary healthcare facilities contain at least one antibiotic. This study explores the existing care context at rural health centres (RHC) in Punjab to inform the development of an intervention package aimed at reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for two most common infections in the outpatient department of RHCs i.e., upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) and diarrhoea.
methodsThis study employed a care-cascade framework, selected for its suitability in resource-constrained settings and its applicability in contexts with limited evidence on AMR and stewardship practices. The mixed-methods design included: literature review; facility review (n = 3); key informant interviews with healthcare providers (n = 6) and patients (n = 6); and focus group discussions with health managers (n = 1), healthcare providers (n = 2), patients (n = 2), patients with experience of using mobile healthcare applications (n = 2) and community significants (n = 1). The data analysed at each step informed the next step and was populated in the pre-defined care tasks considered as themes.
resultsUsing the care-cascade framework, four major care tasks were identified in URTI and diarrhoea management at RHCs: (1) patient consultation and laboratory testing, (2) drug prescription, (3) drug dispensing, and (4) patient education and counselling. At the RHCs there were no standard guidelines or diagnostic protocols being followed, inadequate lab facilities, and very brief patient consultations. Antibiotic prescription was largely empirical, driven by doctor's clinical acumen and patient demands. Drug dispensing practices were inconsistent, involving dispensing partial courses without counselling. Patients were insufficiently counselled on disease management and antibiotic use. Stakeholders made context specific recommendations for developing clinical protocols, patient counselling, and training both doctors and dispensers. They also informed the design and content of the digital tools for patient engagement.
conclusionThis study underscores the complexity of antibiotic stewardship in rural health systems. A care-cascade framework allowed us to unpack these multi-layered challenges and identify leverage points for improvement. Future implementation strategies must embed these insights into program design, ensuring that stewardship is not merely a clinical responsibility but a health system imperative.
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.