Search

Objectives: The objective of this study was to systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies on the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance., Methods: We searched four databases to July 2014, with no language or study design restrictions. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We calculated the median (IQR) of the proportion of participants who agreed with each statement and synthesized qualitative data by identifying emergent themes., Results: Of 3537 articles screened, 54 studies (41 quantitative, 3 mixed methods and 10 qualitative) were included (55 225 participants). Most studied adults (50; 93% studies) and were conducted in Europe (23; 43%), Asia (14; 26%) or North America (12; 22%). Some participants [median 70% (IQR 50%-84%); n = 8 studies] had heard of antibiotic resistance, but most [median 88% (IQR 86%-89%); n = 2 studies] believed it referred to changes in the human body. Many believed excessive antibiotic use [median 70% (IQR 59%-77%); n = 11 studies] and not completing antibiotic courses [median 62% (IQR 47%-77%); n = 8 studies] caused resistance. Most participants nominated reducing antibiotic use [median 74% (IQR 72%-85%); n = 4 studies] and discussing antibiotic resistance with their clinician (84%, n = 1 study) as strategies to reduce resistance. Qualitative data supported these findings and additionally identified that: participants believed they were at low risk from antibiotic resistance participants; largely attributed its development to the actions of others; and strategies to minimize resistance should be primarily aimed at clinicians., Conclusions: The public have an incomplete understanding of antibiotic resistance and misperceptions about it and its causes and do not believe they contribute to its development. These data can be used to inform interventions to change the public's beliefs about how they can contribute to tackling this global issue., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To systematically review clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about the importance and causes of antibiotic resistance, and strategies to reduce resistance., Methods: Four databases were searched (until July 2014), without restrictions on language, setting or study design. Fixed responses (from surveys) were grouped into categories. The proportion of participants who agreed with each category was expressed as median, percentage and IQR. Qualitative data were coded into emergent themes. Quantitative categories and qualitative themes were grouped into four overarching categories that emerged from the data., Results: There were 57 included studies (38 quantitative, 14 qualitative, 5 mixed methods) of 11593 clinicians. Most clinicians (69%, IQR 63%-72%, n=5 studies) had heard of antibiotic resistance and 98% (IQR 93%-99%, n=5 studies) believed it was serious. The proportion who believed it was a problem for their practice (67%, IQR 65%-74%, n=13 studies) was smaller than the proportion who believed it was a problem globally (89%, IQR 85%-97%, n=5 studies) or nationally (92%, IQR 88%-95%, n=21 studies). Most believed excessive antibiotic use (97%, IQR 91%-98%, n=12 studies) and patient non-adherence (90%, IQR 82%-92%, n=7 studies) caused resistance. Most knew of strategies to reduce resistance (e.g. clinician education, 90%, IQR 85%-96%, n=7 studies). Qualitative findings support these data: they attributed responsibility for antibiotic resistance to patients, other countries and healthcare settings; resistance was considered a low priority and a distant consequence of antibiotic prescribing., Conclusions: Clinicians believe antibiotic resistance is a serious problem, but think it is caused by others. This needs to be accommodated in interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: We aimed to determine if beliefs about treatment, clinical factors and quality of life predicted adherence to treatment in patients with bronchiectasis., Methods: We recruited participants with confirmed bronchiectasis to a one-year study. We calculated adherence to treatment using medication possession ratios and self-report. Baseline Beliefs about Medicines, clinical, demographic and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Bronchiectasis data were collected. We used logistic regression to determine predictors of adherence to treatment during the subsequent year., Results: Seventy-five participants were recruited. Beliefs about harm, age and total number of prescribed medications were predictors of adherence to inhaled antibiotics. Concerns about medication, age and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Bronchiectasis Treatment Burden were predictors of adherence to other respiratory medicines. Beliefs about necessity of airway clearance and age were predictors of adherence to airway clearance., Conclusion: Beliefs about treatment, age, number of prescribed medications and perceived treatment burden predicted subsequent adherence in bronchiectasis, thereby, providing potential targets for future interventions in this population. Clinicians can use these data to identify patients with bronchiectasis who might be at risk of non-adherence i.e. those who are younger, have concerns about medications, who do not think airway clearance is necessary or who are prescribed numerous medications., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)