ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2026
Process evaluation of an effective Antimicrobial Stewardship intervention in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 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.
- Methodological considerations in interpreting a process evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship for community-acquired pneumonia.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In a previously conducted stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, a multicomponent Antimicrobial Stewardship intervention reduced mean duration of broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment by 26.6% (from 6.5 to 4.8 days) in patients with moderate-severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study presents a detailed process evaluation of the multicomponent Antimicrobial Stewardship improvement intervention. Methods: The intervention consisted of educational activities (clinical lessons with prescription feedback, e-learning, pocket cards, and poster), local opinion leaders promoting guideline-adherent treatment, and prospective audit and feedback. The experiences with performing the intervention were evaluated using trial data; exposure data (clinical lessons, e-learning, and prospective audit and feedback); and semi-structured interviews conducted in December 2019 with eleven physicians from four hospitals. Results: Most intervention components were conducted as planned. However, clinical lessons and e-learning were scheduled more frequently, while prospective audit and feedback was temporarily interrupted in some hospitals. Clinical lessons were on average attended by 31% of the target audience and 44% completed the e-learning. Feedback was provided in 56% of patients receiving broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Clinical lessons, prospective audit and feedback, and local opinion leaders, were identified as the most effective components. Pocket cards were regarded as easy to implement. While e-learning content was judged useful, its perceived effectiveness was reduced by "e-learning fatigue." The poster was considered of low effectiveness. Conclusion: Based on participant experiences, key components of an effective stewardship intervention for improving antimicrobial use in hospitalized CAP patients included prospective audit and feedback, clinical lessons with prescription feedback, pocket cards, and actively engaged local opinion leaders.
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.