RESUMO
Objectives: To further develop an understanding of laypeople's (adult patients and public) beliefs and attitudes toward antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by developing a conceptual model derived from identifying and synthesizing primary qualitative research. Methods: A systematic search of 12 electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science to identify qualitative primary studies exploring patient and public understanding of AMR published between 2012 and 2022. Included studies were quality appraised and synthesized using Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach and reported using eMERGe guidance. Results: Thirteen papers reporting 12 qualitative studies were synthesized. Studies reported data from 466 participants aged 18-90 years. Five themes were identified from these original studies: the responsible patient; when words become meaningless; patient-prescriber relationship; past experience drives antibiotic use; and reframing public perception. These themes supported the development of a conceptual model that illustrates the tension between two different assumptions, that is, how can antibiotics be used for the collective good whilst balancing the immediate needs of individual patients. Conclusions: Findings suggest that AMR is a distinct ethical issue and should not be viewed purely as a prescribing problem. The meta-ethnography-generated conceptual model illustrates many factors affecting the public's perception of AMR. These include laypeople's own knowledge, beliefs and attitudes around antibiotic use, the relationship with the healthcare provider and the wider context, including the overwhelming influence of the media and public health campaigns. Future research is needed to explore effective health messaging strategies to increase laypeople's baseline awareness of AMR as a public threat.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To develop a theory-informed behaviour change intervention to promote appropriate hospital antibiotic use, guided by the Medical Research Council's complex interventions framework. METHODS: A phased approach was used, including triangulation of data from meta-ethnography and two qualitative studies. Central to intervention design was the generation of a robust theoretical basis using the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify relevant determinants of behaviour change and intervention components. Intervention content was guided by APEASE (Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects, and Equity) criteria and coded using a Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Stakeholders were involved throughout. RESULTS: From numerous modifiable prescribing behaviours identified, active 'antibiotic time-out' was selected as the target behaviour to help clinicians safely initiate antibiotic reassessment. Prescribers' capability, opportunity, and motivation were potential drivers for changing this behaviour. The design process resulted in the selection of 25 behaviour change techniques subsequently translated into intervention content. Integral to this work was the development and refinement of a Digital Antibiotic Review Tracking Toolkit. CONCLUSION: This novel work demonstrates how the Behaviour Change Wheel can be used with the Medical Research Council framework to develop a theory-based behaviour change intervention targeting barriers to timely hospital antibiotic reassessment. Future research will evaluate the Antibiotic Toolkit's feasibility and effectiveness.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance poses a serious global public health threat. Hospital misuse of antibiotics has contributed to this problem and evidence-based interventions are urgently needed to change inappropriate prescribing practices. This paper reports the first theoretical stage of a longer-term project to improve antibiotic prescribing in hospitals through design of an effective behaviour-change intervention. METHODS: Qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography of primary studies reporting doctors' views and experiences of antibiotic prescribing in hospitals for example, their barriers to appropriate prescribing. Twenty electronic databases were systematically searched over a 10-year period and potential studies screened against eligibility criteria. Included studies were quality-appraised. Original participant quotes and author interpretations were extracted and coded thematically into NVivo. All study processes were conducted by two reviewers working independently with findings discussed with the wider team and key stakeholders. Studies were related by findings into clusters and translated reciprocally and refutationally to develop a new line-of-argument synthesis and conceptual model. Findings are reported using eMERGe guidance. RESULTS: Fifteen papers (13 studies) conducted between 2007 and 2017 reporting the experiences of 336 doctors of varying seniority working in acute hospitals across seven countries, were synthesised. Study findings related in four ways which collectively represented multiple challenges to appropriate antibiotic medical prescribing in hospitals: loss of ownership of prescribing decisions, tension between individual care and public health concerns, evidence-based practice versus bedside medicine, and diverse priorities between different clinical teams. The resulting new line-of-argument and conceptual model reflected how these challenges operated on both micro- and macro-level, highlighting key areas for improving current prescribing practice, such as creating feedback mechanisms, normalising input from other specialties and reducing variation in responsibility for antibiotic decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This first meta-ethnography of doctors` experiences of antibiotic prescribing in acute hospital settings has enabled development of a novel conceptual model enhancing understanding of appropriate antibiotic prescribing. That is, hospital antibiotic prescribing is a complex, context-dependent and dynamic process, entailing the balancing of many tensions. To change practice, comprehensive efforts are needed to manage failures in communication and information provision, promote distribution of responsibility for antibiotic decisions, and reduce fear of consequences from not prescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42017073740 .