A systematic review of national interventions and policies to optimize antibiotic use in healthcare settings in England

Author:

Knowles Rebecca1ORCID,Chandler Clare2,O’Neill Stephen1,Sharland Mike34,Mays Nicholas1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK

2. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK

3. Centre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, Institute for Infection and Immunity, St George’s, University of London , London , UK

4. Paediatric Infectious Diseases Department, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To identify and assess the effectiveness of national antibiotic optimization interventions in primary and secondary care in England (2013–2022). Methods A systematic scoping review was conducted. Literature databases (Embase and Medline) were used to identify interventions and evaluations. Reports included the UK AMR Strategy (2013–2018), National Action Plan (2019–2024) and English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance (ESPAUR) reports (2014–2022). The design, focus and quality of evaluations and the interventions’ effectiveness were extracted. Findings Four hundred and seventy-seven peer-reviewed studies and 13 reports were screened. One hundred and three studies were included for review, identifying 109 interventions in eight categories: policy and commissioning (n = 9); classifications (n = 1); guidance and toolkits (n = 22); monitoring and feedback (n = 17); professional engagement and training (n = 19); prescriber tools (n = 12); public awareness (n = 17); workforce and governance (n = 12). Most interventions lack high-quality effectiveness evidence. Evaluations mainly focused on clinical, microbiological or antibiotic use outcomes, or intervention implementation, often assessing how interventions were perceived to affect behaviour. Only 16 interventions had studies that quantified effects on prescribing, of which six reported reductions. The largest reduction was reported with structural-level interventions and attributed to a policy and commissioning intervention (primary care financial incentives). Behavioural interventions (guidance and toolkits) reported the greatest impact in hospitals. Conclusions Many interventions have targeted antibiotic use, each pulling different levers across the health system simultaneously. On the basis of these studies, structural-level interventions may have the greatest impact. Collectively, the combination of interventions may explain England’s decline in prescribing but direct evidence of causality is unavailable.

Funder

ESRC

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3