A Survey Assessing Antimicrobial Prescribing at United Nations Relief and Works Agency Primary Health Care Centers in Jordan

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health emergency. There is insufficient information on AMR in the context of humanitarian settings. An understanding of behavioral and institutional-level factors can strengthen antimicrobial stewardship. This study used a semistructured questionnaire to assess both knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) on antimicrobial use, resistance and stewardship, and options to improving prescribing, among prescribers at the Primary Healthcare facilities of the United Nations’ Relief and Works Agency Jordan field office. Responses to the KAP questions were evaluated using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) framework and Bloom’s cutoffs. For each framework component, Bloom’s cutoffs and interpretations were as follows: ≥ 80%, “good”; 60–79%, “moderate”; and < 60%, “poor.” Fourteen options to improve prescribing were each assessed using 5-point Likert scales from very unhelpful to very helpful, aggregated by helpful and very helpful and ranked as follows: > 90%, best/most acceptable; > 80–90%, acceptable; and 70–80% as maybe acceptable/good. The questionnaire response rate was 59% (37/63) with a completion rate of 92% (34/37). Aggregate scores for real knowledge on AMR was 97%; opportunity to improve prescribing 88%; and motivation 16%—participants did not believe that there was a connection between their prescribing and AMR or that they had a key role in helping control AMR. Good options (74% aggregate score) to improving prescribing were the availability of guidelines and resistance data. There was good knowledge of AMR and good opportunities, but poor motivation for rational prescribing or behavioral change. There is a clinical need for AMR data to promote rational antibiotic prescribing.