Beliefs about antibiotics, perceptions of antimicrobial resistance, and antibiotic use: initial findings from a multi-country survey.

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Annie S K Jones, Amy H Y Chan, Kebede Beyene, Chloe Tuck, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Victoria Rutter, Rob Horne
{"title":"Beliefs about antibiotics, perceptions of antimicrobial resistance, and antibiotic use: initial findings from a multi-country survey.","authors":"Annie S K Jones, Amy H Y Chan, Kebede Beyene, Chloe Tuck, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Victoria Rutter, Rob Horne","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riad089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine public beliefs about antibiotics, AMR, and knowledge of antibiotic use, and how these relate to self-reported antibiotic use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two hundred and fifty participants from 23 countries completed a cross-sectional, online survey assessing beliefs about antibiotics and AMR, knowledge of antibiotics, and antibiotic use. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman's ρ correlations were used to understand relationships between outcomes.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>Respondents generally viewed antibiotics positively, with particularly strong beliefs regarding their benefit (M = 16.48 out of 20, SD = 2.62) and few concerns regarding their harm (M = 3.98 out of 10, SD = 1.82). Greater benefit beliefs about antibiotics were associated with fewer concerns about their overuse (P < .0001) and harm (P < .0001). Stronger perceived importance of AMR was associated with greater beliefs about the benefits of antibiotics (P = .006), greater concerns about their overuse (P = .009), and increased knowledge of appropriate use (P = .006). Those who reported inappropriately using their last antibiotics had greater concerns about overuse (P = .12) and less knowledge regarding appropriate use (P = .015), compared to those who did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generally, the public tends to view antibiotics as having strong benefits and have few concerns about their harm, which may have implications for inappropriate use. These initial findings highlight beliefs that could be targeted in messages to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":" ","pages":"21-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To examine public beliefs about antibiotics, AMR, and knowledge of antibiotic use, and how these relate to self-reported antibiotic use.

Methods: Two hundred and fifty participants from 23 countries completed a cross-sectional, online survey assessing beliefs about antibiotics and AMR, knowledge of antibiotics, and antibiotic use. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman's ρ correlations were used to understand relationships between outcomes.

Key findings: Respondents generally viewed antibiotics positively, with particularly strong beliefs regarding their benefit (M = 16.48 out of 20, SD = 2.62) and few concerns regarding their harm (M = 3.98 out of 10, SD = 1.82). Greater benefit beliefs about antibiotics were associated with fewer concerns about their overuse (P < .0001) and harm (P < .0001). Stronger perceived importance of AMR was associated with greater beliefs about the benefits of antibiotics (P = .006), greater concerns about their overuse (P = .009), and increased knowledge of appropriate use (P = .006). Those who reported inappropriately using their last antibiotics had greater concerns about overuse (P = .12) and less knowledge regarding appropriate use (P = .015), compared to those who did not.

Conclusions: Generally, the public tends to view antibiotics as having strong benefits and have few concerns about their harm, which may have implications for inappropriate use. These initial findings highlight beliefs that could be targeted in messages to reduce inappropriate demand for antibiotics.

对抗生素的看法、对抗菌药耐药性的认识以及抗生素的使用:一项多国调查的初步结果。
目的研究公众对抗生素、AMR 和抗生素使用知识的看法,以及这些看法与自我报告的抗生素使用情况之间的关系:来自 23 个国家的 250 名参与者完成了一项横断面在线调查,调查内容包括对抗生素和 AMR 的看法、抗生素知识以及抗生素使用情况。调查采用了描述性统计、Mann-Whitney U 检验和 Spearman's ρ 相关性来了解结果之间的关系:受访者普遍对抗生素持积极态度,尤其坚信抗生素的益处(M = 16.48,满分为 20 分,SD = 2.62),而很少担心抗生素的害处(M = 3.98,满分为 10 分,SD = 1.82)。对抗生素益处的认识越高,对其过度使用(P < .0001)和危害(P < .0001)的担忧就越少。对 AMR 重要性的更强认知与对抗生素益处的更强信念(P = .006)、对过度使用抗生素的更大担忧(P = .009)以及对适当使用抗生素的更多了解(P = .006)相关。与未报告最后一次抗生素使用不当的人相比,报告最后一次抗生素使用不当的人更担心过度使用抗生素(P = .12),对适当使用抗生素的了解较少(P = .015):一般来说,公众倾向于认为抗生素具有很大的益处,而很少担心其危害,这可能会对抗生素的不当使用产生影响。这些初步调查结果表明,为减少对抗生素的不当需求,可以有针对性地传达一些信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信