Antimicrobial stewardship strategies and programs in the outpatient settings: a scoping review.

Adrienne Landsteiner, Muthu Narayan, Jonathan Byrd, Steffi Yang, Kristen Ullman, Catherine Sowerby, Nicholas Zerzan, Caleb Kalinowski, Dimitri Drekonja, Timothy J Wilt, Wei Duan-Porter
{"title":"Antimicrobial stewardship strategies and programs in the outpatient settings: a scoping review.","authors":"Adrienne Landsteiner, Muthu Narayan, Jonathan Byrd, Steffi Yang, Kristen Ullman, Catherine Sowerby, Nicholas Zerzan, Caleb Kalinowski, Dimitri Drekonja, Timothy J Wilt, Wei Duan-Porter","doi":"10.1017/ash.2026.10741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To describe the evidence on antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and strategies implemented in outpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We conducted a scoping review to describe the evidence published since 2013 on the effects and implementation of outpatient ASP strategies and programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from January 1, 2013 through September 3, 2024. Data were summarized in figures and tables. We categorized studies by types of ASP strategies and settings. We also summarize the reported outcomes using the RE-AIM framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 29,544 unique citations/abstracts, 285 primary studies and 37 systematic reviews were eligible. Most included primary studies were observational (<i>k</i> = 226) and only 59 (21%) were randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most studies were conducted in primary care (<i>k</i> = 135) or emergency room/urgent care (<i>k</i> = 79). The most commonly evaluated individual strategies were patient and/or clinician education only (<i>k</i> = 55), audit and feedback (<i>k</i> = 48), and laboratory testing (<i>k</i> = 45). Overall antimicrobial and inappropriate prescribing rates were the most frequently assessed outcomes; patient treatment outcomes and health care utilization were also commonly reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There has been substantial growth in the evidence base, but this is largely from observational studies. Evidence gaps include a need for more controlled studies, and evaluation of additional outcomes. Few studies evaluated implementation costs or barriers, reach, and sustainability. Many of these additional outcomes would provide valuable insights to aid policy makers in the most feasible and appropriate strategies for implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":"6 1","pages":"e176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13273154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2026.10741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To describe the evidence on antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) and strategies implemented in outpatient settings.

Design: We conducted a scoping review to describe the evidence published since 2013 on the effects and implementation of outpatient ASP strategies and programs.

Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from January 1, 2013 through September 3, 2024. Data were summarized in figures and tables. We categorized studies by types of ASP strategies and settings. We also summarize the reported outcomes using the RE-AIM framework.

Results: Of 29,544 unique citations/abstracts, 285 primary studies and 37 systematic reviews were eligible. Most included primary studies were observational (k = 226) and only 59 (21%) were randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most studies were conducted in primary care (k = 135) or emergency room/urgent care (k = 79). The most commonly evaluated individual strategies were patient and/or clinician education only (k = 55), audit and feedback (k = 48), and laboratory testing (k = 45). Overall antimicrobial and inappropriate prescribing rates were the most frequently assessed outcomes; patient treatment outcomes and health care utilization were also commonly reported.

Conclusions: There has been substantial growth in the evidence base, but this is largely from observational studies. Evidence gaps include a need for more controlled studies, and evaluation of additional outcomes. Few studies evaluated implementation costs or barriers, reach, and sustainability. Many of these additional outcomes would provide valuable insights to aid policy makers in the most feasible and appropriate strategies for implementation.

抗菌药物管理策略和方案在门诊设置:范围审查。
目的:描述抗菌药物管理计划(asp)和策略在门诊实施的证据。设计:我们进行了一项范围综述,以描述自2013年以来发表的关于门诊ASP策略和项目的效果和实施的证据。方法:检索2013年1月1日至2024年9月3日的Ovid MEDLINE、Embase和Scopus数据库。数据以图表形式汇总。我们根据ASP策略和设置的类型对研究进行分类。我们还使用RE-AIM框架总结了报告的结果。结果:在29,544篇独特引用/摘要中,285篇初步研究和37篇系统综述符合条件。大多数纳入的初步研究为观察性研究(k = 226),只有59项(21%)为随机对照试验(RCT)。大多数研究是在初级保健(k = 135)或急诊室/紧急护理(k = 79)进行的。最常见的评估个体策略是仅对患者和/或临床医生进行教育(k = 55)、审核和反馈(k = 48)和实验室检测(k = 45)。总体抗菌药物和不当处方率是最常见的评估结果;患者的治疗结果和保健利用情况也经常被报告。结论:证据基础有了实质性的增长,但这主要来自观察性研究。证据缺口包括需要更多的对照研究,以及对其他结果的评估。很少有研究评估实施成本或障碍、覆盖面和可持续性。其中许多额外成果将提供宝贵的见解,帮助决策者制定最可行和最适当的实施战略。
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
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书