ArticleBMJ open2026
Antibiotic prescribing practices of community health extension workers in East Central Uganda: an exploratory qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
backgroundAntibiotic misuse at the community level remains a critical contributor to antimicrobial resistance, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Community Health Extension Workers (CHEWs) play a pivotal role in primary healthcare delivery and antibiotic access, yet little is known about how they navigate prescribing decisions amid systemic limitations, social expectations and ethical pressures.
objectiveThis study explored CHEWs' perceptions, practices and experiences related to antibiotic prescribing and dispensing in resource-constrained settings, with particular attention to decision-making processes, ethical reasoning and everyday care realities.
methodsAn exploratory qualitative study was conducted involving in-depth interviews with 25 community health extension workers. Data were analysed thematically using an inductive approach. Themes were developed through iterative coding and constant comparison, with attention to both structural and social influences on antibiotic use. Data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated into English.
resultsFour major themes emerged: (1) decision-making under resource constraints, characterised by medicine shortages, stock-outs and limited diagnostic capacity; (2) negotiating community expectations versus guidelines, where social pressure and cultural norms influenced prescribing practices; (3) ethical dilemmas and moral reasoning, reflecting CHEWs' strong sense of responsibility for patient outcomes amid competing professional and community obligations; and (4) informal antibiotic practices and improvisation, including borrowing medicines, adjusting dosages due to financial constraints and integrating traditional knowledge. Across themes, CHEWs demonstrated adaptive, contextually grounded decision-making shaped by scarcity, trust and moral accountability.
conclusionCHEWs' antibiotic prescribing practices are not simply acts of non-adherence to clinical guidelines but represent complex, morally informed responses to structural constraints and community realities. Effective antimicrobial stewardship in resource-limited settings must therefore move beyond individual behaviour change to address health system limitations, ethical complexity and the social dimensions of care.
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.