ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
Public knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to antimicrobial resistance and antibiotics: a systematic review of studies in high-income countries.
Review 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health concern, influenced by public behaviours. This study aimed to systematically review and synthesize qualitative and quantitative studies on public knowledge, beliefs and behaviours related to antibiotics and AMR, and explore gender differences, in high-income countries. Materials and methods: Eleven databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Medline and PsycINFO were searched for primary studies published between August 2014 and 12 June 2026. This article reports the high-income country subset of a larger global review; other results will be reported separately. We carried out a descriptive, non-meta-analytic synthesis at study- and country-level by calculating the mean, SD, median and range of the proportion of participants whose data demonstrated incorrect knowledge, misconceptions, and positive or negative behaviours. Gender differences were synthesized narratively. Qualitative data were synthesized under each outcome using deductive thematic analysis. Results: Of 12 338 records identified, 121 were globally eligible. Thirty-three high-income country studies were included in this article (29 quantitative and 4 qualitative, with 33 252 participants). Cross-country variability was found in knowledge, beliefs and behaviours. Misunderstandings were prominent around the definition of AMR and its implications for health. Narrative gender differences were inconsistent and qualitative data were limited, but gave insight into potential drivers of behaviours. Conclusions: Despite international variations, knowledge gaps, misconceptions and counterproductive behaviours were widespread. Findings show that AMR is a system-wide issue that requires attention from all One Health stakeholders, and a unified, multi-faceted, multidisciplinary approach that can help tackle the continuing public health threat, and change behaviour to protect health.
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.