Dataset Information

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that are inappropriate.

Methods and findings

We searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and CENTRAL for articles published between 1 January 2010 and 4 April 2019 without language restrictions. We subsequently updated our search on PubMed only to capture publications up to 11 March 2020. Studies conducted in LMICs (defined as per the World Bank criteria) reporting data on medicine use in primary care were included. Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and abstract, whereas the full-text evaluation of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and quality assessment. A modified version of a tool developed by Hoy and colleagues was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of each included study. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to identify the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) framework was used to classify prescribed antibiotics. We identified 48 studies from 27 LMICs, mostly conducted in the public sector and in urban areas, and predominantly based on medical records abstraction and/or drug prescription audits. The pooled prevalence proportion of antibiotic prescribing was 52% (95% CI: 51%-53%), with a prediction interval of 44%-60%. Individual studies' estimates were consistent across settings. Only 9 studies assessed rationality, and the proportion of inappropriate prescription among patients with various conditions ranged from 8% to 100%. Among 16 studies in 15 countries that reported details on prescribed antibiotics, Access-group antibiotics accounted for more than 60% of the total in 12 countries. The interpretation of pooled estimates is limited by the considerable between-study heterogeneity. Also, most of the available studies suffer from methodological issues and report insufficient details to assess appropriateness of prescription.

Conclusions

Antibiotics are highly prescribed in primary care across LMICs. Although a subset of studies reported a high proportion of inappropriate use, the true extent could not be assessed due to methodological limitations. Yet, our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices, starting from the integration of WHO treatment recommendations and the AWaRe classification into national guidelines.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123269.

SUBMITTER: Sulis G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7297306 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sulis Giorgia G Adam Pierrick P Nafade Vaidehi V Gore Genevieve G Daniels Benjamin B Daftary Amrita A Das Jishnu J Gandra Sumanth S Pai Madhukar M

PLoS medicine 20200616 6

<h4>Background</h4>The widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that ...[more]

PMID: 32544153

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInadequate health-care provider performance is a major challenge to the delivery of high-quality health care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of strategies to improve health-care provider performance in LMICs.MethodsFor this systematic review we searched 52 electronic databases for published studies and 58 document inventories for unpublished studies from the 1960s to 2016. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. We only included strategy-versus-control group comparisons. We present results of improving health-care provider practice outcomes expressed as percentages (eg, percentage of patients treated correctly) or as continuous measures (eg, number of medicines prescribed per patient). Effect sizes were calculated as absolute percentage-point changes. The summary measure for each comparison was the median effect size (MES) for all primary outcomes. Strategy effectiveness was described with weighted medians of MES. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016046154.FindingsWe screened 216 477 citations and selected 670 reports from 337 studies of 118 strategies. Most strategies had multiple intervention components. For professional health-care providers (generally, facility-based health workers), the effects were near zero for only implementing a technology-based strategy (median MES 1·0 percentage points, IQR -2·8 to 9·9) or only providing printed information for health-care providers (1·4 percentage points, -4·8 to 6·2). For percentage outcomes, training or supervision alone typically had moderate effects (10·3-15·9 percentage points), whereas combining training and supervision had somewhat larger effects than use of either strategy alone (18·0-18·8 percentage points). Group problem solving alone showed large improvements in percentage outcomes (28·0-37·5 percentage points), but, when the strategy definition was broadened to include group problem solving alone or other strategy components, moderate effects were more typical (12·1 percentage points). Several multifaceted strategies had large effects, but multifaceted strategies were not always more effective than simpler ones. For lay health-care providers (generally, community health workers), the effect of training alone was small (2·4 percentage points). Strategies with larger effect sizes included community support plus health-care provider training (8·2-125·0 percentage points). Contextual and methodological heterogeneity made comparisons difficult, and most strategies had low quality evidence.InterpretationThe impact of strategies to improve health-care provider practices varied substantially, although some approaches were more consistently effective than others. The breadth of the HCPPR makes its results valuable to decision makers for informing the selection of strategies to improve health-care provider practices in LMICs. These results also emphasise the need for researchers to use better methods to study the effectiveness of interventions.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure places a significant burden on patients and health systems in high-income countries. However, information about its burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is scant. We thus set out to review both published and unpublished information on the presentation, causes, management, and outcomes of heart failure in LMICs.Methods and findingsMedline, Embase, Global Health Database, and World Health Organization regional databases were searched for studies from LMICs published between 1 January 1995 and 30 March 2014. Additional unpublished data were requested from investigators and international heart failure experts. We identified 42 studies that provided relevant information on acute hospital care (25 LMICs; 232,550 patients) and 11 studies on the management of chronic heart failure in primary care or outpatient settings (14 LMICs; 5,358 patients). The mean age of patients studied ranged from 42 y in Cameroon and Ghana to 75 y in Argentina, and mean age in studies largely correlated with the human development index of the country in which they were conducted (r = 0.71, p<0.001). Overall, ischaemic heart disease was the main reported cause of heart failure in all regions except Africa and the Americas, where hypertension was predominant. Taking both those managed acutely in hospital and those in non-acute outpatient or community settings together, 57% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49%-64%) of patients were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, 34% (95% CI: 28%-41%) with beta-blockers, and 32% (95% CI: 25%-39%) with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Mean inpatient stay was 10 d, ranging from 3 d in India to 23 d in China. Acute heart failure accounted for 2.2% (range: 0.3%-7.7%) of total hospital admissions, and mean in-hospital mortality was 8% (95% CI: 6%-10%). There was substantial variation between studies (p<0.001 across all variables), and most data were from urban tertiary referral centres. Only one population-based study assessing incidence and/or prevalence of heart failure was identified.ConclusionsThe presentation, underlying causes, management, and outcomes of heart failure vary substantially across LMICs. On average, the use of evidence-based medications tends to be suboptimal. Better strategies for heart failure surveillance and management in LMICs are needed. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda).FindingsData were available for 7049 facilities and 63?869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains.InterpretationFacility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets