ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
From governance scores to governance impact: Closing the know-do gap in AMR policy evaluation.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the 2026 revision of the Global Action Plan (GAP) on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) approaches, attention is shifting from policy adoption to the more complex challenge of evaluating implementation. Although most countries now have national action plans, reductions in resistance remain limited, exposing a persistent know-do gap between formal commitments and real-world impact. This commentary argues that prevailing governance assessments prioritise institutional presence over functional performance, overlook political economy constraints, and insufficiently integrate environmental and agricultural domains central to One Health. We highlight how surveillance asymmetries and static scoring distort comparisons and misdirect investment. We propose an impact-oriented evaluation agenda that incorporates temporal dynamics, incentive structures, equity considerations, and causal inference approaches to distinguish genuine progress from reporting artefacts. Closing the know-do gap is essential if AMR governance is to move beyond preparedness and deliver measurable, sustained change.
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.