The governance of antimicrobial resistance in Brazil: Challenges for developing and implementing a one health agenda.

This article explores stakeholders' perceptions of the challenges for developing a One Health agenda to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Brazil, including the development and implementation of the Brazilian National Action Plan (BR-NAP). The data originate from 27 interviews conducted with human, environmental, and animal health stakeholders, including academics, managers, and policymakers involved in developing the BR-NAP. Through thematic analysis, we identified three interconnected themes: governance, the health system, and technical and scientific challenges. The findings draw particular attention to failures in the agenda-setting process, revealed by interviewees strongly emphasising that AMR is not considered a policy priority in Brazil. The lack of political will and awareness of the clinical, social, and economic impacts of AMR are considered the main impediments to the agenda's progress. The joint work across disciplines and ministries must be reinforced through policymaker engagement and better environmental sector integration. The agenda must include sustainable governance structures less affected by political winds. Policies should be designed jointly with state and local governments to create strategies to engage communities and improve their translation into effective implementation.

Coping with in-locus factors and systemic contradictions affecting antibiotic prescription and dispensing practices in primary care-A qualitative One Health study in Brazil.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasing threat to global health. The risks and sanitary consequences of AMR are disproportionately experienced by those living in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). While addressing antibiotic use has largely been documented in hospital settings, the understanding of social drivers affecting antibiotic prescribing and dispensing practices in the context of human and animal health in primary care (PC) in LMICs remains extremely limited. We seek to explore how in-locus and multi-level social factors influence antibiotic prescriptions and dispensing practices in the context of human and animal health in primary care in Brazil. This is a baseline qualitative One Health study; semi-structured interviews and field observations were undertaken in primary care sites located in a socioeconomically vulnerable area in the city of São Paulo, the most populated city of Brazil. Twenty-five human and animal healthcare professionals (HP) were purposely sampled. Interview data were subject to thematic analysis. Three overlapping social drivers were identified across HPs' discourses: individual and behavioral challenges; relational and contextual factors influencing the overprescription of antibiotics (AB); and structural barriers and systemic contradictions in the health system. As a result of the interaction between multilevel in-locus and structural and contextual factors, HPs experience contextual and territorial challenges that directly influence their risk perception, diagnosis, use of laboratorial and image exams, time and decision to undergo treatment, choice of AB and strategies in coping with AB prescriptions. Additionally, in-locus factors influencing antibiotic prescriptions and dispensing practices are intertwined with individual accounts of risk management, systemic contradictions and ambivalences in the national health system. Our findings suggest interventions tackling AB use and AMR in Brazil should consider the social context, the complex health system structure and current integrated programs and services in PC.

Experiences of antibiotic use among Brazilian healthcare users: An exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: This article analyzes experiences of antibiotic use and bacterial infections among Primary Health Care users of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) and the possible implications for antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The aim is to map aspects that shape users' lay knowledge regarding antibiotics use and AMR. METHODS: This is an exploratory study, which consists primarily of individual in-depth interviews with 19 respondents. Recurrent interview topics were coded and analysed according to thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Our findings show users' lived experiences constitute three dimensions related to users' previous antibiotic use: (1) lay knowledge about medicines; (2) previous bacterial infections and (3) communication during the consultation. Lay knowledge encompasses the users' understanding of how antibiotics work in comparison to other drugs and experimentations they make with medication. Users' narratives about bacterial infections are divided into situations of urinary tract infections and antibiotic treatments for other conditions. Communication during the consultation is mainly characterized by a lack of shared knowledge and trust in the doctor-patient relationship. DISCUSSION: Users bring together knowledge learned from their own experiences to create the rationale, which shapes how they understand antibiotic use, bacterial infections and medical advice. These experiences are interwoven with information received from healthcare professionals (HPs) on these topics, creating a scenario that goes beyond professional information about antibiotic use. Users have knowledge about medication, antibiotics use and bacterial infection but do not have room to share it with HP, allowing lived experiences to take precedence over professional information. CONCLUSION: Users ascribe symbolic meanings to antibiotics creating a lay knowledge frame, even if this knowledge is not scientifically correct. The personal experiences of bacterial infections and their treatment are also an important source of knowledge about antibiotic use and AMR among users. Users demand from their HPs both trust and willingness to listen to their health narratives and experiences. By considering lay knowledge as part of the assessment of a user's health condition, rather than dismissing it as erroneous and therefore unworthy of attention, HPs may enhance the compliance of users. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or community members did not participate in the design stage of the study. Primary Care patients were invited to participate as respondents of in-depth interviews, which were carried out by the first author at a Primary Care Unit (PCU) in the suburb of Campo Limpo, Southern region of São Paulo, Brazil. Patients were interviewed after reading and signing a Free and Informed Consent Form, holding with them a copy of the Form. Among the final activities of the project, a feedback session at the same PCU is planned to report on the results of the study. All respondents will have the opportunity to contribute further information regarding their antibiotic use and exchange knowledge and experiences on antimicrobial resistance.

Antibiotic deprescribing: Spanish general practitioners' views on a new strategy to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A doctor may recommend that a patient stop an antibiotic course before its scheduled completion time if further treatment may cause more harm than benefit. OBJECTIVES: This study explores general practitioners' (GP) opinions about the use of antibiotic deprescribing (AD) in general practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study answered from February to March 2022. GPs (n = 6,083) affiliated with the largest Spanish scientific society of primary care were invited to participate. The survey included two statements related to use and fourteen views about AD rated by GPs using a 5-item Likert scale. RESULTS: Eleven hundred and seven doctors completed the surveys (18.2%), of whom 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90.8-94%) reported having used the AD strategy in their practice at least once. GPs felt very confident in using a deprescribing strategy in patients with common cold and influenza (97.6% and 93.5%, respectively) but less with acute bronchitis (45.5%); 12.1% (95% CI, 10.2-14.2%) considered this practice harmful to patients. Respondents reported using AD more frequently when they initiated the antibiotic course (96.8%; 95% CI, 95.5-97.7) than when the treatment was initiated by another doctor (52.3%; 95% CI, 49.3-55.3%). However, doctors aged >60 years were more prone to use AD compared with younger colleagues (64.5% vs. 50%; p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: The GPs in this study employ the strategy of AD. Nonetheless, essential differences lie in their views of the way the strategy is used. Further studies are warranted to explore the beliefs behind these perceptions and promote wider use of AD by GPs.

General Practitioners' Views on the Acceptability and Applicability of Using Quality Indicators as an Intervention to Reduce Unnecessary Prescription of Antibiotics in Four South American Countries.

As part of the quality improvement program “Health Alliance for Prudent Prescribing, Yield And Use of anti-microbial Drugs In the Treatment of respiratory tract infections” (HAPPY AUDIT) South America, we planned to implement an intervention based on the use of quality indicators as a means to influence General Practitioners’ (GPs) prescribing decision. Knowledge on the acceptability and applicability of an intervention is crucial to decide whether the intervention is suitable and will achieve the expected outcomes. This study explores GPs’ views about the acceptability and applicability of using quality indicators as an intervention to influence their prescribing decision in patients with suspected Respiratory Tract Infections (RTIs) across four countries in South-America. In March 2015, GPs that were participating in HAPPY AUDIT South America were invited to participate in focus groups. A discussion guide covering the domains acceptability and applicability was used. Data was analyzed through systematic text condensation with an inductive approach. 171 GPs were invited and 48% participated. Acceptability ranged from totally acceptable to slightly acceptable. This spectrum of GPs views on acceptability was influenced by themes concerning applicability. In conclusion, there is a positive attitude towards the use of quality indicators. Nonetheless, applicability challenges have to be taken into consideration and solved if we are to achieve a large effect with the implementation of this intervention.