ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
The WHO costing and budgeting tool for national action plans on antimicrobial resistance-a review and assessment of impact in Africa.
Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health crisis affecting human health, animal health, plant health, and the environment. In 2015, all WHO Member States endorsed the Global Action Plan on AMR and committed to develop multi-sectoral national action plans (NAPs) under a 'One Health' approach. To accelerate the implementation of AMR NAPs, the WHO introduced a costing and budgeting tool in 2021 to support prioritization of interventions, identification of activities financed through existing budgets, estimation of implementation costs and assessment of funding gaps. Objectives: To assess the impacts resulting from the use of the costing and budgeting tool at national level in WHO African region (AFRO) Member States. Methods: National AMR focal points from the human, animal, agriculture and environmental sectors in 15 WHO African Region Member States trained on the tool completed a questionnaire using Google Forms via a secure web-based survey link. Results: Eleven countries reported mobilizing funding using costed data generated through the tool. Costed NAPs informed policy decisions in seven countries and improved stakeholder collaboration in funding efforts. However, the use of the tool revealed significant challenges, including insufficient domestic financing and lack of congruence of donor priorities with national needs. Conclusions: Costing One Health AMR NAPs serves as an important catalyst for realistic budgeting and resource planning including resource mobilization to ensure both effective implementation and the long-term sustainability of AMR interventions.
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.