Dataset Information

Behavioural interventions to address rational use of antibiotics in outpatient settings of low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore the current evidence on interventions to influence antibiotic prescribing behaviour of health professionals in outpatient settings in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, an underrepresented area in the literature.

Methods

The systematic review protocol for this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020170504). We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies relating to antibiotic prescribing of health professionals in outpatient settings in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Behavioural interventions were classified as persuasive, enabling, restrictive, structural or bundle (mix of different interventions). In total, 3,514 abstracts were screened and 42 studies were selected for full-text review, with 13 studies included in the final narrative synthesis.

Results

Of the 13 included studies, five were conducted in Vietnam, two in Sudan, two in Tanzania, two in India and two in Kenya. All studies were conducted in the outpatient or ambulatory setting: eight took place in primary health centres, two in private clinics and three in pharmacies. Our review found that enabling or educational interventions alone may not be sufficient to overcome the ingrained incentives to link revenue generation to sales of antibiotics, and hence, their inappropriate prescription or misuse. Bundle interventions appear to be very effective at changing prescription behaviour among healthcare providers, including drug sellers and pharmacists.

Conclusions

Multi-faceted bundle interventions that combine regulation enforcement with face-to-face education and peer influence may be more effective than educational interventions alone at curbing inappropriate antibiotic use.

SUBMITTER: Nair MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8248115 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNon-communicable diseases are the leading global cause of death and disproportionately afflict those living in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). The association between socioeconomic status and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors is well established in high-income countries, but it is not clear how behavioural risk factors are distributed within LLMICs. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the association between socioeconomic status and harmful use of alcohol, tobacco use, unhealthy diets, and physical inactivity within LLMICs.MethodsWe searched 13 electronic databases, including Embase and MEDLINE, grey literature, and reference lists for primary research published between Jan 1, 1990, and June 30, 2015. We included studies from LLMICs presenting data on multiple measures of socioeconomic status and tobacco use, alcohol use, diet, and physical activity. No age or language restrictions were applied. We excluded studies that did not allow comparison between more or less advantaged groups. We used a piloted version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group data collection checklist to extract relevant data at the household and individual level from the included full text studies including study type, methods, outcomes, and results. Due to high heterogeneity, we used a narrative approach for data synthesis. We used descriptive statistics to assess whether the prevalence of each risk factor varied significantly between members of different socioeconomic groups. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026604.FindingsAfter reviewing 4242 records, 75 studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 2 135 314 individuals older than 10 years from 39 LLMICs. Low socioeconomic groups were found to have a significantly higher prevalence of tobacco and alcohol use than did high socioeconomic groups. These groups also consumed less fruit, vegetables, fish, and fibre than those of high socioeconomic status. High socioeconomic groups were found to be less physically active and consume more fats, salt, and processed food than individuals of low socioeconomic status. While the included studies presented clear patterns for tobacco use and physical activity, heterogeneity between dietary outcome measures and a paucity of evidence around harmful alcohol use limit the certainty of these findings.InterpretationDespite significant heterogeneity in exposure and outcome measures, clear evidence shows that the burden of behavioural risk factors is affected by socioeconomic position within LLMICs. Governments seeking to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3.4-reducing premature non-communicable disease mortality by a third by 2030-should leverage their development budgets to address the poverty-health nexus in these settings. Our findings also have significance for health workers serving these populations and policy makers tasked with preventing and controlling the rise of non-communicable diseases.FundingWHO.

Project description:Delayed acceptance or refusal of COVID-19 vaccines may increase and prolong the threat to global public health and the economy. Identifying behavioural determinants is considered a critical step in explaining and addressing the barriers of vaccine refusal. This study aimed to identify the behavioural determinants of COVID-19-vaccine acceptance and provide recommendations to design actionable interventions to increase uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in six lower- and middle-income countries. Taking into consideration the health belief model and the theory of reasoned action, a barrier analysis approach was employed to examine twelve potential behavioural determinants of vaccine acceptance in Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Tanzania. In all six countries, at least 45 interviews with those who intended to get the vaccine ("Acceptors") and another 45 or more interviews with those who did not ("Non-acceptors") were conducted, totalling 542 interviews. Data analysis was performed to find statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between Acceptors and Non-acceptors of COVID-19 vaccines and to identify which beliefs were most highly associated with acceptance and non-acceptance of vaccination based on the estimated relative risk. The analysis showed that perceived social norms, perceived positive and negative consequences, perceived risk, perceived severity, trust, perceived safety, and expected access to COVID-19 vaccines had the highest associations with COVID-19-vaccine acceptance in Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, and the DRC. Additional behavioural determinants found to be significant in Myanmar and India were perceived self-efficacy, trust in COVID-19 information provided by leaders, perceived divine will, and perceived action efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. Many of the determinants were found to be significant, and their level of significance varied from country to country. National and local plans should include messages and activities that address the behavioural determinants found in this study to significantly increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines across these countries.

Project description:ObjectivesLow-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO has repeatedly called for more research on poverty and NCDs in these settings, but the current situation remains unquantified. We aimed to assess research output on poverty and NCD risk factors from these countries in relation to upper middle-income and high-income countries.DesignBibliometric analysis of primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 4 May 2017. We searched 13 databases, combining terms for poverty and NCD behavioural risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity). Independent dual review was used to screen titles, abstracts and full papers. Two-tailed t-testing and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare differences in means.Outcomes(1) Proportion of lead authors affiliated with institutions based in high and upper middle-income countries vs LLMICs. (2) Mean number of citations for publications from each region. (3) Mean journal impact factor for studies from each region.ResultsNinety-one (67%) of the 136 included studies were led by scientists affiliated with LLMIC-based institutions. These authors represented 17/83 LLMICs (20%), and their studies garnered 4.8 fewer citations per paper than studies led by high-income and upper middle-income-affiliated authors; however, this finding was non-significant (P=0.67). Papers led by authors based in high-income and upper middle-income countries were published in journals with a mean impact factor 3.1 points higher than those from LLMICs (4.9 vs 1.7) adjusting for year of publication and number of citations (P<0.001).ConclusionsMost poverty and NCD risk factor research is led by authors from a small number of LLMICs. These studies are being published in relatively low-impact journals, and the vast majority of LLMICs are not producing any research in this area that is vital to their social and economic development. The paucity of domestic evidence must be addressed to inform global policy.

Project description:ImportanceMany randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research.ObjectiveTo describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresA bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC).ResultsAmong the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study.

Project description:ObjectivesA scoping review was conducted to answer the question: How is critical care nursing (CCN) performed in low-income countries and lower middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs)?DesignScoping review guided by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.Data sourcesSix electronic databases and five web-based resources were systematically searched to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and April 2021.Review methodsThe search results received two-stage screening: (1) title and abstract (2) full-text screening. For sources of evidence to progress, agreement needed to be reached by two reviewers. Data were extracted and cross-checked. Data were analysed, sorted by themes and mapped to region and country.ResultsLiterature was reported across five georegions. Nurses with a range formal and informal training were identified as providing critical care. Availability of staff was frequently reported as a problem. No reports provided a comprehensive description of CCN in LICs/LMICs. However, a variety of nursing practices and non-clinical responsibilities were highlighted. Availability of equipment to fulfil the nursing role was widely discussed. Perceptions of inadequate resourcing were common. Undergraduate and postgraduate-level preparation was poorly described but frequently reported. The delivery of short format critical care courses was more fully described. There were reports of educational evaluation, especially regarding internationally supported initiatives.ConclusionsDespite commonalities, CCN is unique to regional and socioeconomic contexts. Nurses work within a complex team, yet the structure and skill levels of such teams will vary according to patient population, resources and treatments available. Therefore, a universal definition of the CCN role in LIC/LMIC health systems is likely unhelpful. Research to elucidate current assets, capacity and needs of nurses providing critical care in specific LIC/LMIC contexts is needed. Outputs from such research would be invaluable in supporting contextually appropriate capacity development programmes.