Antimicrobial stewardship interventions in least developed and low-income countries: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasing in low resource settings. It complicates the management of infectious diseases and is an increasing cause of death. This is due to, among other things, lack of health resources for appropriate diagnosis and unregulated access to antimicrobials in the public sphere. Developing context-specific interventions that enable judicious use of antimicrobials is important to curb this problem.Methods
We will conduct a systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) approaches in Development Assistance Committee in least developed and low-income countries. The inclusion criteria are antimicrobial stewardship interventions in hospitalised patients of all age groups and exclusion criteria are community-based trials and studies that solely focus on viral, fungal or parasite infections. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions will be classified as structural, enabling, persuasive, restrictive or combined. Outcomes of included studies will be classified as clinical, microbiological or behavioural outcomes. The studies to be included will be randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series trials, cohort and qualitative studies. Data will be extracted using forms adapted from the Cochrane collaboration data collection form. This systematic review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias will be done according to the Integrated quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs.Ethics and dissemination
Our findings will be presented to clinicians and policymakers, to support developing AMS protocols for low resource settings. We will publish our results in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number
CRD42020210634.
SUBMITTER: Mzumara GW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8362704 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to identify interventions used to implement antimicrobial stewardship practices among hospitalized patients in least-developed countries.MethodsThe research team searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies of AMS interventions in the least developed and low-income countries, published between 2000 and 2023. Included studies had a population of hospitalized patients of all age groups in least-developed countries, implemented an AMS intervention, and reported its impact on prescription practices, clinical outcomes, or microbiological results. The risk of bias was assessed using the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs. A total of 443 articles were identified, 386 articles were screened, 16 full-text papers were reviewed, and 10 studies were included in the analysis.ResultsThe ten studies included three controlled before and after, two qualitative, one controlled interrupted time series, two non-controlled interrupted time series, one quasi-experimental study, and one randomized controlled trial. Three studies implemented either enabling, persuasive, or structural interventions respectively. The rest used bundled strategies, including a combination of persuasive, enabling, structural, and restrictive interventions. Bundled interventions using enabling and persuasive strategies were the most common. These involved creating a prescription guideline, training prescribers on updated methods, and subsequent review and feedback of patient files by members of an AMS team. Improved microbiological surveillance was important to most studies but, sustained improvement in appropriate prescriptions was dependent on enabling or persuasive efforts. Studies noted significant improvements in appropriate prescriptions and savings on the costs of antibiotics. None evaluated the impact of AMS on AMR.ConclusionAMS practices generally involve multiple strategies to improve prescription practices. In the setting of least-developed countries, enabling and persuasive interventions are popular AMS measures. However, measured outcomes are heterogeneous, and we suggest that further studies assessing the impact of AMS should report changes in AMR patterns (microbiological outcomes), patient length of stay and mortality (patient outcomes), and changes in prescription practices (prescription outcomes). Reporting on these as outcomes of AMS interventions could make it easier for policymakers to compare which interventions have desirable outcomes that can be generalized to similar settings.
| S-EPMC10666353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is central to the World Health Organisation Global Action Plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). If antibiotics are used without restraint, morbidity and mortality from AMR will continue to increase. In resource-rich settings, AMS can safely reduce antibiotic consumption. However, for children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the impact of different AMS interventions is unknown.AimTo determine the impact of different AMS interventions on antibiotic use and clinical and microbiologic outcomes in children in LMIC.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched for studies of AMS interventions in pediatric population in LMIC settings. Controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies were included. Outcomes assessed were antibiotic use, multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) rates, clinical outcomes and cost.ResultsOf 1462 studies, 34 met inclusion criteria including a total population of >5,000,000 in 17 countries. Twenty were in inpatients, 2 in ED, 10 in OPD and 2 in both. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials. All types of interventions reported a positive impact on antibiotic prescribing. AMS bundles with education, and clinical decision tools appeared more effective than guidelines alone. AMS interventions resulted in significantly decreased clinical infections (4/4 studies) and clinical failure (2/2) and reduced MDRO colonization rate (4/4). There was no concomitant increase in mortality (4/4 studies) or length of stay (2/2).ConclusionMultiple effective strategies exist to reduce antibiotic consumption in LMIC. However, marked heterogeneity limit conclusions regarding the most effective approach, particularly regarding clinical outcomes. Overall, AMS strategies are important tools in the reduction of MDRO-related morbidity in children in LMIC.
| S-EPMC8815847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundViolence during pregnancy is a global problem, associated with serious health risks for both the mother and baby. Evaluation of interventions targeted for reducing or controlling domestic violence (DV) is still in its infancy, and the majority of findings are primarily from high-income countries (HICs). Therefore, there is an urgent need for generating evidence of DV interventions among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be employed to structure the review. A comprehensive search will be carried out via electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane library. Gray literature will also be scrutinized for potential articles. An optimal search strategy has been developed following consultations with subject-matter experts and librarians. This search strategy will be adapted to the different databases. Experimental studies evaluating DV interventions among pregnant women from LMICs will be included in the review. The review will only include literature written in English. Two reviewers will independently screen and assess studies for inclusion in the review. A third author will resolve any discrepancies between the reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and overall quality of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Findings will be presented with the narrative synthesis, and if applicable, they will be further quantified using random-effects meta-analysis. Effect size, risk ratio for dichotomous variables, and standardized mean differences for continuous variables will be calculated for each outcome using Review Manager 5.3.DiscussionSystematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy of interventions to address DV within the perinatal context have been limited. Hence, no one intervention has emerged as substantially effective towards addressing perinatal DV and associated health consequences. The evidence generated from this systematic review will inform researchers and policy makers about the effectiveness of existing DV interventions among pregnant women in LMICs and provide recommendations for future research in this area. This in turn will contribute towards violence prevention in LMICs.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017073938.
| S-EPMC5727941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.
| S-EPMC6376798 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Transportation interventions seek to decrease delay in reaching a health facility for emergency obstetric care and are, thus, believed to contribute to reductions in such adverse pregnancy and childbirth outcomes as maternal deaths, stillbirths, and neonatal mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, there is limited empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. The objective of the proposed review is to summarize and critically appraise evidence regarding the effect of emergency transportation interventions on outcomes of labor and delivery in LMICs. METHODS:The following databases will be searched from inception to March 31, 2018: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO (PsycINFO and CINAHL), the Cochrane Pregnancy and Child Birth Group's Specialized Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will search for studies in the grey literature through Google and Google Scholar. We will solicit unpublished reports from such relevant agencies as United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) among others. Data generated from the search will be managed using Endnote Version 7. We will perform quantitative data synthesis if studies are homogenous in characteristics and provide adequate outcome data for meta-analysis. Otherwise, data will be synthesized, using the narrative synthesis approach. DISCUSSION:Among the many barriers that women in LMICs face in accessing life-saving interventions during labor and delivery, lack of access to emergency transportation is particularly important. This review will provide a critical summary of evidence regarding the impact of transportation interventions on outcomes of pregnancy and childbirth in LMICs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017080092.
| S-EPMC5922314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Recently, there has been a steady increase in mobile health (mHealth) interventions aimed at improving maternal health of women in low-income and middle-income countries. While there is evidence indicating that these interventions contribute to improvements in maternal health outcomes, other studies indicate inconclusive results. This uncertainty has raised additional questions, one of which pertains to the role of targeting strategies in implementing mHealth interventions and the focus on pregnant women and health workers as target groups. This review aims to assess who is targeted in different mHealth interventions and the importance of targeting strategies in maternal mHealth interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search for peer-reviewed, English-language literature published between 1999 and July 2017 in PubMed, Web of Knowledge (Science Direct, EMBASE) and Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials. The study scope is defined by the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes framework: P, community members with maternal or reproductive needs; I, electronic health or mHealth programmes geared at improving maternal or reproductive health; C, other non-electronic health or mHealth-based interventions; O, maternal health measures including family planning, antenatal care attendance, health facility delivery and postnatal care attendance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study is a review of already published or publicly available data and needs no ethical approval. Review results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017072280.
| S-EPMC5855310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdjunctive psychological interventions for bipolar disorder have demonstrated better efficacy in preventing or delaying relapse and improving outcomes compared with pharmacotherapy alone.AimsTo evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for bipolar disorder in low- and middle-income countries.MethodA systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane database for systematic review, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Latin America and Caribbean Center on Health Science Literature and African Journals Online databases with no restriction of language or year of publication. Methodological heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 18 adjunctive studies were identified: psychoeducation (n = 14), family intervention (n = 1), group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (n = 2) and group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) (n = 1). In total, 16 of the 18 studies were from upper-middle-income countries and none from low-income countries. All used mental health specialists or experienced therapists to deliver the intervention. Most of the studies have moderately high risk of bias. Psychoeducation improved treatment adherence, knowledge of and attitudes towards bipolar disorder and quality of life, and led to decreased relapse rates and hospital admissions. Family psychoeducation prevented relapse, decreased hospital admissions and improved medication adherence. CBT reduced both depressive and manic symptoms. MBCT reduced emotional dysregulation.ConclusionsAdjunctive psychological interventions alongside pharmacotherapy appear to improve the clinical outcome and quality of life of people with bipolar disorder in middle-income countries. Further studies are required to investigate contextual adaptation and the role of non-specialists in the provision of psychological interventions to ensure scalability and the efficacy of these interventions in low-income country settings.Declaration of interestNone.
| S-EPMC6127962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionStroke is the second leading cause of death and morbidity across the globe. In low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), it has become an overwhelming burden over the past few decades. This burden is escalating at a much greater pace compared with that of high-income countries. It is considered the most frequent cause of adult disability that affects the quality of life. 'Prevention' is one of the key components to combating stroke. In this regard, community-based interventions can play a vital role in improving population-level health and well-being. Considering the escalating trend of stroke in LMICs, this systematic review aims to map the available community-based interventions in preventing stroke and to conduct further analysis regarding the effectiveness of the identified interventions.Methods and analysisWe have searched Medline, Web of Science and Scopus using a comprehensive search strategy in October 2021. Two reviewers will independently perform screening, data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment. The ROB assessment and applicability of results of eligible studies will be performed using the Cochrane ROB tool for assessing randomised controlled trials and the ROBANS (Risk Of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies) to assess non-randomised studies. A random-effect model meta-analysis will be used to calculate pooled results and to obtain weighted OR and risk ratio of incidence of stroke along with corresponding 95% CI.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated through publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and public presentations at relevant national and international conferences. Ethical approval is not required as this is a systematic review of publicly available data.Prospero registration numberCRD42021283670.
| S-EPMC9364391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionColorectal cancer (CRC) imposes a significant global burden of disease. CRC survival rates are much lower in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Screening tends to lead to an improvement in cancer detection and the uptake of available treatments and, in turn, to better chances of cancer survival. Most evidence on CRC screening interventions comes from high-income countries. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available literature on the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
| S-EPMC7295404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVirtually all low- and middle-income countries are dependent on the World Health Organization's Expanded Program on Immunization for delivery of vaccines to children. The Expanded Program on Immunization delivers routine immunization services from health facilities free of charge. Understanding interventions for improving immunization coverage remains key in achieving universal childhood immunization.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review that aims to assess the effectiveness of the full range of potential interventions to improve routine immunization coverage in children in low- and middle-income countries. We will include intervention studies, as well as observational studies. We will search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, electronic databases for eligible studies published by 31 August 2013. At least two authors will independently screen search outputs, select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias (using separate criteria for interventions and observational studies); resolving any disagreements by discussion and consensus. The use of logic models and the Cochrane Complexity Matrix will be explored in order to better understand and contextualize studies. We will express the result of each study as a risk ratio with its corresponding 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data, or mean difference with its standard deviation for continuous data. We will conduct meta-analysis for the same type of participants, interventions, study designs, and outcome measures where homogeneity of data allows. Use of harvest plots may be explored as an alternative. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the ?² test of heterogeneity, and quantified using the I2 statistic. This protocol has not been registered with PROSPERO.DiscussionThis review will allow us to document evidence across a broad range of intervention types for improving routine immunization coverage in children and also distinguish between those that are well supported by evidence (to direct policy recommendations) and those that are not well supported (to direct research agenda).
| S-EPMC3843560 | biostudies-literature