Optimizing antibiotic use in Indonesia: a systematic review and synthesis of current evidence to inform opportunities for intervention

Ralalicia Limato, Gilbert Lazarus, Puck Dernison, Manzilina Mudia, Monik Alamanda, Erni J. Nelwan, Robert Sinto, Anis Karuniawati, H. Rogier van Doorn, Raph L. Hamers
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.20.22271261

ABSTRACT

Introduction A major driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and poor clinical outcomes is suboptimal antibiotic use, although data are lacking in low-resource settings. We reviewed studies on systemic antibiotic use (WHO ATC/DDD category J01) for human health in Indonesia, and synthesized available evidence to identify opportunities for intervention.

Methods We systematically searched five international and national databases for eligible peer-reviewed articles, in English and Indonesian, published between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2021 including: 1) antibiotic consumption; 2) prescribing appropriateness; 3) antimicrobial stewardship (AMS); 4) perceptions among consumers and providers. Two independent reviewers included studies and extracted data. Study-level data were summarized using random-effects model meta-analysis for consumption and prescribing appropriateness, effect direction analysis for AMS interventions, and qualitative synthesis for perception surveys. (PROSPERO CRD42019134641)

Results Of 9323 search hits, we included 100 reports on antibiotic consumption (20), prescribing appropriateness (49), AMS (13), and/or perception (25) (8 categorized in >1 domain). The pooled estimate of overall antibiotic consumption was 110.1 DDD/100 patient-days (95%CI98.5-121.6), with ceftriaxone, ampicillin and levofloxacin being most consumed. Pooled estimates for overall appropriate prescribing (according to Gyssens method) were 33.5% (95%CI18.1-53.4%) in hospitals and 49.4% (95%CI23.7-75.4%) in primary care. Pooled estimates for appropriate prescribing (according to reference guidelines) were, in hospitals, 99.7% (95%CI97.4-100%) for indication, 84.9% (95%CI38.5-98.0%) for drug choice, and 6.1% (95%CI0.2-63.2%) for overall appropriateness, and, in primary care, 98.9% (95%CI60.9-100%) for indication, 82.6% (95%CI50.5%-95.7%) for drug choice and 10.5% (95%CI0.8-62.6%) for overall appropriateness. The few AMS intervention studies conducted to date suggested potential to reduce antibiotic consumption and improve prescribing appropriateness. Key themes identified in perception surveys were lack of antibiotic knowledge among consumers and non-prescription antibiotic self-medication.

Conclusions Context-specific strategies are urgently needed to improve rational antibiotic use in Indonesian hospitals and communities, with critical evidence gaps concerning private and informal health providers.

KEY QUESTIONS What is already known?

  • • Indonesia is a potential AMR hotspot, where, based on pharmaceutical sales data, antibiotic consumption increased 2.5-fold between 2000 and 2015, mostly driven by broad-spectrum penicillins, fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins.

  • • Representative contemporary data on antibiotic use are lacking, although anecdotal data suggest antibiotic overuse in the healthcare system, widespread over-the-counter use in communities, and high rates of AMR mostly among common Gram-negative bacteria.

  • • A comprehensive review on antibiotic use in human health in Indonesia has not been conducted to date.

What are the new findings?

  • • Available data spanning the past 20 years, suggested that only 34% and 49% of antibiotics were appropriately prescribed in hospital and primary care settings, respectively, although the quality of the evidence was low.

  • • Publications evaluating AMS interventions have been sparse to date, demonstrating the need to strengthen the local research base to develop context-specific and sustainable AMS models.

  • • Community surveys suggested important gaps in antibiotic knowledge, and that non-prescription antibiotic self-medication is common practice, although data to quantify this problem and its drivers are lacking.

What do the new findings imply?

  • • Available evidence synthesised in this Review provides important insights in the magnitude and patterns of antibiotic use, and associated patient and health system factors, which helps define opportunities for optimising responsible antibiotic use.

  • • Critical evidence gaps exist on informal and formal private health care providers, geographic areas outside of Java Island, as well as effective AMS models that consider country-specific socio-cultural, economic and political circumstances.

  • • Optimization of antimicrobial use as a means to tackle AMR should be a priority of the national agenda for universal health coverage.

INTRODUCTION

The global rise in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is considered one of the greatest public health threats worldwide, with a disproportionate impact in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).1 A recent global analysis estimated that AMR was directly responsible for 1.27 million deaths and played a part in 4.95 million deaths in 2019.1 One of the major drivers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is antibiotic use, including their overuse and misuse, for human health.2, 3 In low-resource settings, lack of access to quality health care, vaccination, safe water and sanitation, leave many people vulnerable to infection and dependent on antibiotics for treatment, with their use largely unregulated. At the same time, access to life-saving drugs targeting the emerging resistant pathogens remains an issue in many settings. Globally, during the past decade concerted efforts have been made to develop strategies to preserve the effectiveness of existing antibiotic agents, although this has been partially set back because of the COVID-19 pandemic.4

Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country in Southeast Asia with the world’s fourth largest population (274 million), and socio-economic conditions and health indicators vary widely across the archipelago. More than 55% of the population is concentrated on Java Island, which contributes around 59% to the national economy and has the best developed health infrastructure.5 Based on pharmaceutical sales data between 2000 and 2015, Indonesia ranks among the greatest risers in antibiotic consumption (29th of 76 countries).3 A range of complex factors, including variable access to quality health care, persistently high infectious disease burdens,6 and weakly enforced antibiotic policies, render Indonesia particularly vulnerable to AMR.5–7 The implementation of the National Action Plan for AMR, launched in 20178, 9 has been hindered due to, among other factors, a limited evidence base of AMR epidemiology, antibiotic utilisation and rational prescribing practices.7

We systematically reviewed the scientific literature on antibiotic use for human health, in both hospital and primary care settings, in Indonesia spanning the past 20 years. This Review focused on four key domains: 1) antibiotic consumption; 2) appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing; 3) AMS interventions; 4) knowledge, attitudes and perceptions among consumers and providers. This Review also reflects on current progress in the National Action Plan for AMR, and defines evidence gaps and context-specific priorities for action.

METHODS

Search strategy and selection criteria

This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.10 A detailed protocol has been prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019134641). Data for this systematic review were identified through the screening of five international (PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar) and national (Garuda [Garba Rujukan Digital] and Neliti) electronic bibliographic databases. Reference screening was used to identify additional relevant papers. The review was limited to antibacterials for systematic human use (J01 category in WHO ATC/DDD index). Only peer-reviewed original articles published in English or Indonesian between 1 January 2000 and 1 June 2021 were included. Search terms covered all domains of this Review and combined Indonesia, antibiotic, antimicrobial, consumption, prescription, dispensing and stewardship. Full search terms are listed in Table S1. We did not contact study authors.

View this table:
Table 1.

Characteristics of included reports

We included original papers reporting on one or more of the following domains:

  • 1. Antibiotic consumption: estimates of antibiotic utilization in adults expressed as defined daily dose (DDD) normalized to 100 patient-days (inpatients) or inhabitant-days (outpatients) (or with alternative units of measure that could be converted). DDD is defined as the assumed average maintenance drug dose per day for its main indication in adults as established by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics and Methodology. For this review, we extracted data on the top-15 antibiotics with the highest DDDs (defined as the top-3 antibiotics reported in at least two studies) and grouped them according to the WHO AwaRe (Access, Watch, and Reserve) classification.11 We excluded paediatric studies because most studies incorrectly used DDD (not suitable for children) rather than days of therapy (DOT).

  • 2. Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing for treatment or prophylaxis: a) drug prescription audits using Gyssens method,12, 13 i.e., an expert panel (of at least two reviewers) retrospectively evaluates each antibiotic prescription (based on available clinical and microbiological data in the medical record and local guidelines) by sequentially categorizing six indicators: (vi) insufficient data; (v) antibiotic is not indicated; (iv) alternative antibiotic is available that is (iv-a) more effective, (iv-b) less toxic, (iv-c) less costly, (iv-d) has narrower spectrum; (iii) inappropriate duration, (iii-a) either too long, (iii-b) or too short; incorrect (ii-a) dose, (ii-b) interval, (ii-c) route; (i) incorrect timing; and (0) appropriate use; b) studies that assessed antibiotic prescriptions according to named reference guideline(s), based on the following eight pre-defined indicators: no contra-indication or allergy label, indication, drug choice, dose, frequency, duration, route of administration, and overall rational use. We included in this category relevant indicators collected as part of point prevalence surveys (e.g., GLOBAL-PPS, WHO).

  • 3. AMS interventions: intervention studies with a clearly described pre-post or (quasi-) experimental design and outcome measures.

  • 4. Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP): questionnaire-based surveys on knowledge, attitude and/or practice of antibiotic use among consumers and/or providers.

We excluded non-human studies; studies exclusively describing other (non-J01) drugs; describing or comparing the effectiveness, cost, quality and/or molecular profiles of antibiotics; exclusively targeting particular diagnoses and its treatment; and studies of which the full text could not be accessed. Because the included studies were mostly neither randomised controlled studies nor comparative studies, traditional methods for assessment of risk of bias were not applicable. To ensure quality, we excluded studies that did not report an essential set of STROBE checklist core items,14 or did not fulfil additional criteria (Table S2). All steps in this systematic literature search were conducted using Mendeley reference management software. Two reviewers (PD, MA) separately screened all titles and abstracts, and removed duplicates. Full-text articles were independently judged for relevance and quality by at least two reviewers (PD, MA, MM, RL). Any disagreements were resolved by a senior researcher (RLH).

View this table:
Table 2.

Summary of reports on antimicrobial stewardship interventions

Data analysis

We extracted and tabulated data on study design, location, population, health care setting, year of study, study sample size, indicators, interventions, outcome measures and effects, and emerging themes, as appropriate and relevant, based on the author-reported summary estimates (not individual patient-level data). Data were extracted by two reviewers (PD, MM) onto a predesigned form.

Where possible, data on antibiotic consumption and appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing were pooled using a random-effects model meta-analysis, due to the likeliness of unexplained heterogeneity.15 Data on antibiotic consumption were pooled with meta-analyses of rates using the generic inverse variance method, with DDD/100 patient-days as the rate and sample sizes as the denominator. Data on the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, separate for Gyssens method and reference guidelines, were pooled with meta-analyses of proportions using the generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with the logit transformation to retain studies with extreme proportions.16 Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic (low <25%, moderate 25-49%, substantial 50-74%, or high 75-100%) and chi-squared test (p<0.10). When two or more studies involved overlapping populations, data synthesis was prioritised to studies with larger sample sizes. Subgroup analyses were then performed by dichotomising the studies based on health care setting (primary care vs hospital [including secondary and tertiary levels]), study location (Java vs non-Java), year of study (before vs after 2016), AWaRe classification (access vs watch antibiotics) (for DDD only), and age groups (adults vs children) (for appropriateness only). To assess the robustness of the findings, we also performed a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (for DDD and Gyssens), and by replicating the analysis using other transformations (i.e., Freeman-Tukey double arcsine, arcsine, inverse-variance logit, log transformations) and without transformation (for Gyssens only). All meta-analyses were performed in R version 4.1.0 using the additional meta (4.18-2), metafor (3.0-2), and forestplot packages (1.10.1). When appropriate (k≥10), publication bias assessments were performed visually by using funnel plots and quantitatively by using Egger’s tests with a significance level set at 10%. The funnel plots were generated by plotting the inverse square root of study sizes against the effect estimates due to the expected variability of study sizes and the fact that conventional funnel plots may be inaccurate in assessing potential publication bias in meta-analyses of proportions.17

Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity in studies evaluating AMS interventions, we synthesised the findings using a vote-counting method based on direction of effects, and subsequently summarised the results into an effect direction table. The interventions were classified as structural, enabling, persuasive, restrictive, or combined (bundled).18 Perception surveys were qualitatively synthesised based on the main emerging themes, stratified by consumers and providers.

Patient and public involvement statement

The patients and public were not involved in the development of this study.

RESULTS

Study characteristics

The search strategy collectively gave 9 323 hits. After title and abstract screening and duplicate removal, 551 articles remained (Figure 1). After full-text screening and quality assessment, 100 reports (covering 97 studies) were included. Study characteristics are summarized in Tables 1 and S3. Most studies had an observational design (86.0%, 86/100), were conducted in the public sector (58.4%, 59/101), in hospital settings (53.0%, 53/100), in Java (60.2%, 62/103), and during the most recent five years (62.0%, 62/100).

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart of study selection

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Geographical map of the 100 included reports on antibiotic use in Indonesia 2000-2021

The map includes 2 KAP surveys that were conducted nationwide, and 1 AMS study and 1 KAP survey that were conducted in multiple provinces.

Antibiotic consumption

A total of 20 reports (5 193 626 patients) reported data on antibiotic consumption.19–38 Most of the studies were conducted in hospital settings (16 reports, 76.2%), in Java (14 reports, 66.7%), and between 2016-2021 (17 reports, 81.0%; Table S4). The pooled estimate of overall antibiotic consumption was 110.1 DDD/100 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI] 98.5-121.6; I2=100%; Figure S1), with ceftriaxone being the most consumed antibiotic (60.2 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 34.2-86.1]), followed by ampicillin (28.0 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 0.00-82.8]) and levofloxacin (21.4 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 15.4-27.3]; Figure 3). Sensitivity analysis found that the pooled estimate was not dominated by a single report (Figure S2).

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Summary forest plot of reports on antibiotic consumption

The figure summarizes 20 reports in the domain antibiotic consumption, expressed as DDD/100 patient-days, for the top-15 antibiotics. Egger’s tests to assess publication bias could only be performed for the primary analysis and the individual AWaRe antibiotics.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DDD, defined daily dose; NA, not applicable.

Subgroup analyses (Figure 3) showed higher antibiotic consumption in hospitals (134.1 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 88.7-179.6]) than primary care (37.8 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 25.9-49.8]), and in recent years (2016-2021: 123.8 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 100.2-147.3]) than previous years (2000-2015: 55.2 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 18.5-91.9]), but there were no significant differences between Java (114 DDD/100 patient-days [95%CI 70.7-158.0]) and outside of Java (100.0 [95%CI 68.7-131.3]). The asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger’s p=0.047; Figure S3) may indicate reporting bias or true heterogeneity in antibiotic consumption patterns between studies, hospitals and/or geographic areas.

Appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing

A total of 49 reports reported data on the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing, of which 1833, 39–55 (3167 prescriptions) used Gyssens method and 31 (7826 prescriptions)20, 56–85 used reference guidelines. Most were conducted in hospitals (37 reports, 74.0%), in Java (33 reports, 66.0%), and in adults (29 reports, 58.0%) (Table S5-S6).

Based on the Gyssens method, the pooled estimate for the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing was 35.3% (95%CI 20.7-53.4%; I2=97.2%) (Figure S4). confidence analysis showed that the overall estimate was not dominated by a single study (Figure S5) and was similar between approximation methods (Figure S6). The symmetrical funnel plot (Egger’s p=0.108; Figure S7) indicated low risk of bias from small-study effects. Subgroup analyses showed higher appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in adults (43.1% [95%CI 25.9-62.2%] than in children (8.4% [95%CI 0.6-57.9%]), but there were no significant differences between primary care 49.4% [95% CI 23.7-75.4%]) vs hospitals (32.3% [95%CI 17.9-51.0%]), Java (31.4% [95%CI 18.8-47.6%]) vs outside of Java (38.1% [95%CI 6.2-85.0%], and recent years (2016-2021: 39.1% [95%CI 19.4-63.0%] vs previous years (2000-2015: 26.1% [95%CI 12.4-47.1%] (Figure 4A).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Summary forest plot on prescribing appropriateness

The figure summarizes 49 reports in the domain prescribing appropriateness based on Gyssens method (A) or references guidelines (B). Indicators (B) were reported by different numbers of studies. Egger’s tests to assess publication bias in Gyssens method (A) could only be performed for the primary analysis.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.

Based on reference guidelines, most individual indicators of appropriateness scored excellent (>80%), except for duration (65.8% [95%CI 38.6-85.5%]) (Figure 4B) and overall rational antibiotic use (8.0% [95%CI 1.0-43.6%]). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial (75-100%) for all indicators, except for administration route (I2=0%, p>0.999) and no contraindication/allergy label (I2=6.4%, p=0.382). Possible small-study effects were found for indication and duration (Egger’s test p=0.092 and p=0.074, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed higher appropriateness of duration in hospitals (80.0% [95%CI 66.0-89.2%]) than primary care (34.5% [95%CI 4.3-86.1%]), and in adults (83.2% [95%CI 65.3-92.9%] than children (17.9% [95%CI 1.2-79.4%]; Figure S8), and higher appropriateness of drug choice, dosing, and overall rational use outside of Java (95.2% [95%CI 73.9-99.3%], 90.0% [95%CI 71.1-97.1%], and 34.5% [95%CI 3.1-89.8%] than in Java (70.0% [95%CI 23.2-94.7%], 67.2% [95%CI 32.3-89.8%), and 3.3% [95%CI 0.3-32.0%]; Figure S9-S11, respectively) –although the latter differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences for no contraindication/allergy label, indication, dosing frequency, or administration route (Figure S12-15).

Antibiotic stewardship interventions

A total of 13 reports reported data on the effect of AMS interventions, of which 11 in hospitals,23, 28, 31, 33, 47, 86–91 1 in primary care,92 and 1 in community pharmacies93 (Table 2). Twelve reports used a pre-post design, and one was a randomized controlled trial. Four reports evaluated a bundled intervention and 9 studies evaluated single interventions. Enabling interventions were most common (antibiotic prescribing guidelines or clinical pathway [8 reports], education and training [5] and pharmacist counselling [1]), followed by persuasive interventions (audit and performance feedback [3]), restrictive interventions (antibiotic restriction with pre-approval [1]) and structural interventions (free blood cultures [1], integrated drug management [1]). The most common reported outcome measures were changes in appropriateness of prescribing (10 reports), antibiotic consumption (8) and mortality (2), followed by prescribers’ scores for knowledge of and attitude towards antibiotic use, blood culture sampling, hand hygiene compliance, clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and antibiotic compliance (1 each).

Studies that evaluated bundled interventions (4 reports) reported favourable effects on antibiotic consumption, prescribing appropriateness, guideline compliance, blood culture sampling, HAI rates, hand hygiene compliance, and mortality, although the authors of one study concluded that the multifaceted intervention had limited success, with a very important drawback being the absence of adequate microbiological diagnostics.31, 88, 89, 92

Studies that evaluated the implementation of antibiotic prescribing guidelines or clinical pathway (7 reports) reported mixed effects on antibiotic consumption and favourable effects on prescribing appropriateness.23, 31, 47, 86, 88, 90, 91 Studies that evaluated education and/or training interventions (5 reports) reported mixed effects on antibiotic consumption and prescribing appropriateness.31, 87–89, 92

The one study that evaluated antibiotic restriction with pre-approval found that consumption of restricted antibiotics decreased and of unrestricted narrow-spectrum antibiotics increased.28 The one randomised study that evaluated the effect of a pharmacist counselling session of outpatient antibiotic users in community pharmacies found that self-reported antibiotic adherence was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group.93

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on antibiotic use among consumers and providers

A total of 25 reports reported data on KAP, of which 22 among communities94–115 and 3 among healthcare providers116–118 (Table S7-S8). Interpretation was challenged by the considerable between-study clinical (e.g., study populations) and methodological (e.g., survey questionnaires) heterogeneity.

First, there was a substantial lack of AMR awareness (10 reports) and knowledge about antibiotics (16) among community respondents, with wide variations between communities: overall, 23-26% did not know that antibiotic treated bacterial infections and 58-74% stated that antibiotics can cure viral infections.96, 105, 110, 115 Antibiotic knowledge was found to be associated with higher education and higher income (2 reports).105, 111

Second, antibiotic self-medication without prescription was reportedly common community respondents, ranging from 20-100% across studies (9 reports). Respondents reported they purchased antibiotics for self-medication at the pharmacy (46-90%),94–96, 99, 104, 106, 109, 112 at the kiosk (20-44%),96, 104 or received them from family and friends (9-12%).95, 109 20-100% of community respondents reported that they had ever self-medicated with an antibiotic (11),94– 96, 99, 102, 104, 106, 109, 112–114 and 87-100% had ever purchased an antibiotic without a prescription (3).104, 109, 112 Higher education and higher income was correlated with better antibiotic use knowledge.111 One study found that people without health insurance were more likely to self-medicate than those with health insurance,111 whereas another study reported the opposite.104 The main reasons for self-medication included positive previous experience (54-82%),102, 104, 109, 112 self-medication being practical (61-83%),94 easy access from the pharmacy (71%),102 and doctor visit being expensive (44-72%)102, 109 or unpractical (56%).96 The main advisors to self-medicate included health care providers (51-83%),100, 103, 104, 109 family, relatives or friends (21-45%),96, 102, 112 internet (71%),115 or reliance on their own knowledge (71%).96 Antibiotic adherence levels were not associated with education level or employment status (2 studies).98, 101

Third, antibiotic dispensing without prescription was the most important theme reported among health care providers, with conflicting findings. A survey among 250 community pharmacists in Yogyakarta (Java), 68% reported that they would dispense antibiotics without prescription,116 whereas a survey among 110 health providers in community health centres in Padang (Sumatera) found that 98.8% did not prescribe antibiotics without a prescription, despite patient request.117

DISCUSSION

This is the first comprehensive, systematic assessment of human antibiotic use in Indonesia, including 100 peer-reviewed reports spanning the past 20 years, covering the key domains of antibiotic consumption, prescribing appropriateness, AMS interventions, and perceptions among consumers and providers. The rising number of scientific reports published in the most recent years in Indonesia reflects the increasing momentum of AMR on the national health agenda. The evidence collected in this Review comes from a range of health care and community settings, including hospitals, primary care, pharmacies and communities, and includes a range of interventions targeting different types of health providers and consumers. Nonetheless, the evidence base is uneven with hospital and urban contexts over-represented, and informal and formal private health providers, who play a major role in antibiotic distribution, particularly underrepresented.

The data included in this Review highlighted several critical evidence gaps. First, there were important limitations in data heterogeneity and study methodology, and publications were predominantly from Java Island, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions on the contemporary nationwide antibiotic use situation in Indonesia. This is especially relevant given the substantial within-country variations in access to quality health care.5 Representative, high-quality data will be essential for benchmarking between provinces, districts, and healthcare facilities, and internationally. Second, there is a lack of knowledge of health system drivers of community antibiotic use, including the effects of the national health insurance rolled-out since 2014, enforcement of antibiotic regulations in informal and private health sectors, as well as how to achieve effective community antibiotic stewardship. Antimicrobials are presently widely available without a prescription, despite existing restrictive policies.119 Third, the COVID-19 pandemic has suggested a widespread failure of AMS globally with the potential to worsen the AMR crisis.4, 120 Data of its impact in the Indonesian context are urgently needed.

Antibiotic consumption

Across the included studies, ceftriaxone, levofloxacin (both Watch) and ampicillin (Access) were found to be the most consumed antibiotics among adults, and consumption (expressed as DDD) was higher in hospitals than in primary care, and in recent years (2016-2021) than previous years (2000-2015), but there were no significant differences between geographic settings. According to national pharmaceutical sales data, antibiotic consumption increased 2.5-fold between 2000 and 2015, largely driven by the major classes broad-spectrum penicillins (2.6-fold), fluoroquinolones (7.1-fold), and cephalosporins (5.1-fold).121 In 2015, the antibiotic consumption rate per capita in Indonesia (3022 DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per year) fell in the same range as, for instance, China (3060) and Philippines (2600), but was still lower than, for instance, Vietnam (11 480), Thailand (6682) and Malaysia (4388).121 About 69% of antibiotic consumption in Indonesia were Access antibiotics, 30% Watch, and <1% Reserve −this is still above the WHO target of 60% Access antibiotics in total consumption.3

These trends reflect both better access to antibiotics for those who need them, as well as increases in inappropriate antibiotic use. The findings are consistent with the widespread use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, predominantly third-generation cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones, as reported in other Asian countries122–126 and globally,127, 128 and with the disproportionate increase in Watch antibiotic consumption observed in LMIC (165% compared with 27.9% in high-income countries between 2000-2015).129 Although antibiotic consumption per capita in Indonesia and many other LMIC is currently still lower than in most high-income countries in Europe and North America, rapid increases are leading to converging consumption rates, especially regarding last-resort compounds.3 Barring policy changes, antibiotic consumption is projected to increase worldwide by 200% between 2015 and 2030.3 The above concerning developments highlight significant challenges for AMS, underscoring the urgent need for regulation of antibiotic use in Indonesia, and other LMIC.

Appropriateness of prescribing

In Indonesia, appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing was found to be poor overall (35.3%), 49.4% in primary care versus 33.5% in hospitals, 45.9% in adults versus 8.4% in children. We did not identify clear trends over time (prior vs after 2016) or space (Java vs outside of Java). This was despite nationwide implementation of hospital AMS programmes during the past five years.7 Studies in primary healthcare settings in other countries have also reported considerable rates of inappropriate antibiotic use, for instance, at 15% in Canada,130 55% in South Africa,131 61% in China,132 88% in Pakistan,133 and 90% in Vietnam,134 and, likewise, a systematic review of nine studies in LMIC reporting a wide range of between 8 to 100%.135 In a global point prevalence survey, guideline compliance of antimicrobial drug choice in hospitals in Latin America, Africa and Asia, was estimated to be lower than 70% for each region.127

Inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics has been attributed to a range of complex factors, with variations across settings and countries, including physicians’ nonadherence to antibiotic guidelines, lack of knowledge and training regarding antibiotics, lack of diagnostic facilities or, where available, lack of utilization and quality, uncertainty over the diagnosis or fear of clinical failure, pressure from pharmaceutical industry, financial benefits for physicians, and pressure from patients to prescribe antibiotics regardless of the indication, coupled with lack of time of physicians to educate patients.136, 137 Around 60% of total health care spending in Indonesia is in the private sector, where financial incentives may promote prescribing practices that deviate from guidelines. The scale and consequences of non-prescription and private sector antibiotic consumption in Indonesia are an urgent priority for further study and action. Additionally, the local implementation of global definitions and universally applicable quality indicators for antibiotic prescribing in inpatient and outpatient settings will be essential to identify targets for AMS interventions and measure their effectiveness.138, 139 Standardized point prevalence survey tools to assess antibiotic use in hospitals have proven to be useful for identifying targets for improvement and evaluating the effect of interventions.127, 128

Antimicrobial stewardship

According to WHO, AMS is considered one of three pillars of an integrated approach to health systems strengthening and reports from high-income settings have shown that AMS can optimise the use of antimicrobials, improve patient outcomes, reduce AMR and health-care-associated infections, and save health-care costs amongst others.18, 140 A global systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 studies, reported that implementation of AMS programmes resulted in a reduction in overall antibiotic consumption of 19.1% (US 19.9, Europe 20.9%, Asia 16%), of restricted antibiotics by 26.6%, reduction in drug resistant infections, with no associated adverse outcomes in terms of mortality and infection rates.141

In Indonesia, AMS programmes are typically in an early stage of implementation,142, 143 with many hospitals lacking the basic infrastructure to adequately measure process, outcome and structural indicators, e.g., access to microbiology services, hospital antibiotic guidelines, AMS staff training and education, human resources (including infectious disease specialist or clinical microbiologist), and ICT support.144, 145 Whereas to date government policy has focused on assessing hospital antibiotic use as an AMS outcome indicator (using DDD and Gyssens method),145 a recently launched national guideline incorporated additional outcome measures, such as cost-effectiveness, mortality, and AMR rates.146

The few AMS intervention studies conducted to date reported clear benefits from implementing bundled interventions combining antibiotic prescribing guidelines, trainings, review and feedback, restriction with pre-approval, among others. These findings demonstrate that AMS interventions are feasible in the local context and that there is considerable potential for reducing antibiotic consumption, particularly of restricted antibiotics, improving prescribing appropriateness, and reducing prescriptions without indication. However, the interventions evaluated to date were mostly single-centre and short-term (<1 year), and data are lacking about the sustained benefits of AMS programmes in the Indonesian context.

Previous evidence has shown that given the varying priorities and contextual issues in LMIC, such as health system processes, patient demands, varying cultures of care, availability of universal access to quality antimicrobials, laboratory infrastructure and surveillance systems, multipronged interventions combining different restrictive and enabling strategies are most likely to be effective.147, 148 Indeed, the available Indonesian data confirm that a stand-alone guideline distribution approach, without implementing additional AMS core elements, may not work.149 Further enhancement of post-prescription review and feedback efforts holds potential to decrease antibiotic consumption and antibiotic duration.150 For pre-prescription approval, local data suggested that the decreased use of last-resort antibiotics might cause a “squeezing the balloon” phenomenon –the increased use of non-restricted antibiotics due to restrictions of the restricted antibiotics.151

Perceptions on antibiotic use

Key themes identified from perception surveys were a substantial lack of AMR awareness and knowledge about antibiotics, particularly among the poor and lower educated, and widespread antibiotic self-medication without prescription among the general population, and over-the-counter non-prescription antibiotic dispensing in community pharmacies but not in community health centres −although representative data are lacking to quantify this problem and its drivers. The available data corroborate findings of a global review of 38 studies from 24 countries in community pharmacies that over-the-counter non-prescription antibiotics comprised 62% of all dispensed antibiotics, most commonly for urinary tract and upper respiratory tract infections.152 A review of 19 studies in Southeast Asia reported a prevalence of self-medication with antibiotics ranging from 7.3 to 85.6% (median 42.6%), highest among men, health students and professionals, with the most common illnesses or symptoms being common cold, sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal tract and respiratory diseases.153 Across the included studies, the main reasons for self-medication included positive previous experience, easy access from the pharmacy, doctor visit being expensive or unpractical, and the main advisors to self-medicate included health care providers, family, relatives or friends, internet or reliance on their own knowledge, which largely concurred with findings in other Southeast Asian countries.153 A mixed-method study in Indonesia found that drug dispensers were driven to sell non-prescription antibiotic due to strong patient demand, informal drug sellers dispensing medicines, competition between different types of drug outlets, drug outlet owners pushing their staff to sell medicines, and weak enforcement of regulations.119

Country progress in the National Action Plan on AMR and suggested priorities

The National Action Plan on AMR has driven efforts to strengthen microbiological laboratory capacity and data information systems to enable national surveillance,154 supported by the government and international funding agencies. Indonesia enrolled in the WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) and submitted first batches of AMR and antibiotic consumption data in 2020.155 In 2021, the Ministry of Health launched new guidelines for antibiotic prescribing and stewardship,146, 156 which have also adopted the AWaRe classification. Despite this progress, however, the National Action Plan for AMR has not yet generated the required sustainable capacity to contain AMR. Enhanced coordination and financial support at the country, province and district levels are needed, to prevent that the response to AMR remains uneven and insufficient. Interventions to optimise antimicrobial use need to be based on a health systems approach, beyond AMS only, informed by a broad research base. This includes addressing the wider drivers of antibiotic use –such as inequitable burdens of ill health and fractured care cascades. Optimization of antimicrobial use, on the basis of robust surveillance data, should be a priority of the national agenda for universal health coverage. Both universal health coverage and AMR require strong human-centered care with accessible health care facilities, medicines and diagnostics, with a focus on quality and equity.5, 157, 158 This requires further investments in health care infrastructure, training of health workers, community participation and increased health literacy. Modifiable factors related to the patient (e.g., awareness, knowledge) and the health system (e.g., strict policies, medicine quality, financial incentives, infrastructure gaps) need to be further identified and addressed when designing context-specific interventions aimed at curtailing inappropriate antibiotic use.

CONCLUSION

Critical evidence gaps exist on antibiotic use in Indonesia regarding informal and formal private health care providers, geographic areas outside of Java Island, as well as effective AMS models that consider country-specific socio-cultural, economic and political circumstances. Optimisation of antimicrobial use as a means to tackle AMR should be a priority of the national agenda for universal health coverage. In this respect, the COVID-19 pandemic has taught important lessons on the importance of infectious diseases and the critical need to build resilient health systems.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Funding statement

This work was funded by and RLH and HRVD are supported by the Wellcome Africa Asia Programme Vietnam (106680/Z/14/Z). RL is supported by an OUCRU Prize Studentship and a Nuffield Dept of Medicine Tropical Network Fund DPhil Bursary.

Competing interest statement

AK serves as the current Chair of the National AMR Committee (KPRA). HRVD serves as an Executive Board Member of The Surveillance and Epidemiology of Drug-resistant Infections Consortium (SEDRIC). The other authors declare no competing interests.

Author contributions

RLH conceived the idea for the study. RLH and RL obtained the funding. RL, PD and RLH designed the study protocol and data extraction instrument. PD, GL, MM, and MA collected and verified the data, overseen by RL and RLH. RL, GL and RLH performed the analysis and had full access to all study data. RL, GL, MA and RLH drafted the paper, with critical inputs from AK and HRvD. All authors critically revised the manuscript, and all authors gave approval for the final version to be published.

Data sharing statement

No additional data are available.

Acknowledgements

EXPLAIN study group: Erni J. Nelwan, Ralalicia Limato, Manzilina Mudia, Helio Guterres, Enty Enty, Ifael Y. Mauleti, Maria Mayasari, Iman Firmansyah, May Hizrani, Anis Karuniawati, Prof Taralan Tambunan, Prof Amin Soebandrio, Decy Subekti, Iqbal Elyazar, Mutia Rahardjani, Fitria Wulandari, Prof Reinout van Crevel, Rogier van Doorn, Vu Thi Lan Huong, Nga Do Ti Thuy, Sonia Lewycka, Prof Alex Broom, Raph L. Hamers.

Footnotes

  • PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134641

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Christopher J L Murray, Kevin Shunji Ikuta, Fablina Sharara, Lucien Swetschinski, Gisela Robles Aguilar, Authia Gray, Chieh Han, Catherine Bisignano, Puja Rao, Eve Wool, Sarah C Johnson, Annie J Browne, Michael Give Chipeta, Frederick Fell, Sean Hackett,, MN. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019LJ: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2022; 399: 629–55.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Aditi Sriram, Erta Kalanxhi, Geetanjali Kapoor, Jessica Craig, Ruchita Balasubramanian, Sehr Brar, Nicola Criscuolo, Alisa Hamilton, Eili Klein, Katie Tseng, Thomas Van Boeckel RL. The State of the World’s Antibiotics 2021. 2021.
  3. 3.↵
    Klein EY, Van Boeckel TP, Martinez EM, et al. Global increase and geographic convergence in antibiotic consumption between 2000 and 2015. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115: E3463–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Langford BJ, So M, Raybardhan S, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in patients with COVID-19: rapid review and meta-analysis. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021; 27: 520–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Agustina R, Dartanto T, Sitompul R, et al. Universal health coverage in Indonesia: concept, progress, and challenges. Lancet. 2019; 393: 75–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Mboi N, Murty Surbakti I, Trihandini I, et al. On the road to universal health care in Indonesia, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018; 392: 581–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Parathon H, Kuntaman K, Widiastoety TH, et al. Progress towards antimicrobial resistance containment and control in Indonesia. BMJ 2017; : j3808.
  8. 8.↵
    Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance Indonesia 2017-2019. 2017 https://www.flemingfund.org/wp-content/uploads/59f148b0482cda160087e29b9a5a21a0.pdf.
  9. 9.↵
    Menteri Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 7 Tahun 2021 Tentang Rencana Aksi Nasional Pengendalian Resistensi Antimikroba Tahun 2020-2024. 2021. https://jdih.kemenkopmk.go.id/sites/default/files/2021-11/Permenko72021RANPRA.pdf (accessed Feb 14, 2022).
  10. 10.↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372. DOI:10.1136/bmj.n71.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). WHO releases the 2019 AWaRe Classification Antibiotics. World Heal. Organ. 2019. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-10-2019-who-releases-the-2019-aware-classification-antibiotics (accessed March 15, 2021).
  12. 12.↵
    Gyssens IC, Van Den Broek PJ, Kullberg BJ, Hekster YA, Van Der Meer JWM. Optimizing antimicrobial therapy. A method for antimicrobial drug use evaluation. J Antimicrob Chemother 1992; 30: 724–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Van Der Meer JWM, Gyssens IC. Quality of antimicrobial drug prescription in hospital. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7: 12–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007; 370: 1453–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Barker TH, Migliavaca CB, Stein C, et al. Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021; 21: 1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Schwarzer G, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ, Rücker G. Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Synth Methods 2019; 10: 476–83.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Hunter JP, Saratzis A, Sutton AJ, Boucher RH, Sayers RD, Bown MJ. In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 897–903.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Davey P, Scott CL, Brown E, et al. Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients (updated protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011236.pub2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Andriani Y, Meirista I, Aprio Y. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik dengan Metode ATC/DDD dan DU 90% di Puskesmas Kebun Handil Kota Jambi Periode 2018 dan 2019. J Healthc Technol Med 2020; 6: 700.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Dirga D, Khairunnisa SM, Akhmad AD, Setyawan IA, Pratama A. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Rawat Inap di Bangsal Penyakit Dalam RSUD. Dr. H. Abdul Moeloek Provinsi Lampung. J Kefarmasian Indones 2021; : 65–75.
  21. 21.
    Mahmudah F, Sumiwi SA, Hartini S. Study of the Use of Antibiotics with ATC/DDD System and DU 90% in Digestive Surgery in Hospital in Bandung. Indones J Clin Pharm 2016; 5: 293–8.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.
    Massey FK, Yulia R, Herawati F. Profil Kualitas dan Kuantitas Penggunaan Antibiotik Profilaksis pada Pre, On, dan Pos Bedah di Rumah Sakit Provinsi (RSP) NTB. J Sains Farm Klin 2021; 8: 43.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Narulita L, Bilal R, Akram M, Suharjono S. Analysis of Antibiotics on Patients Surgery, before and after Used Guidelines for Antibiotics (PPAB). J Pharmascience 2020; 7: 51.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.
    Perdaka W, Sagita D, Pratama S. Studi Penggunaan Antibiotik Berdasarkan ATC / DDD Dan Du 90 % Di Puskesmas X Kota Jambi Periode 2017-2018 Study of Antibiotic Use Based on ATC / DDD and Du 90 % in Community Health Centers X City OfJambi Period 2017-2018. J Healthc Technol Med 2020; 6: 26–32.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Pratama NYI, Suprapti B, Ardhiansyah AO, Shinta DW. Analisis Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Rawat Inap Bedah dengan Menggunakan Defined Daily Dose dan Drug Utilization 90% di Rumah Sakit Universitas Airlangga. Indones J Clin Pharm 2019; 8: 256.
  26. 26.
    Rachmawati S, Fazeri RL, Norcahyanti I. Gambaran Penggunaan Antibiotik di Bangsal Penyakit Dalam RSUD Bangil Kabupaten Pasuruan. JPSCR J Pharm Sci Clin Res 2020; 01: 12–21.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Sholih MG, Sudarjat H, Saula LS. Gambaran penggunaan antibiotik berdasarkan metode ATC/DDD dan DU 90% di salah satu Puskesmas Karawang. Heal Sci Growth 2019; : 31–7.
  28. 28.↵
    Susanto M, Qanti PO, Anggraini D, Enda WG. Decline in Antibiotic Use after Implementation of Restriction Program at Eka Hospital, Pekanbaru, Riau. In: The 5th International Conference on Public Health. 2019: 1–7.
  29. 29.
    Trisia FJ, Sagita D, Pratama S, et al. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik Dengan Metode ATC / DDD Dan DU 90 % Di Dua Puskesmas Kota Jambi Periode 2017-2018 Evaluation Of Antibiotic Use By Method ATC / DDD And DU 90 % In Two Health Centers Jambi Period 2017-2018. J Healthc Technol Med 2020; 6: 125–38.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.
    Wikantiananda T, Tjahjadi AI, Sudjud RW. Antibiotic Utilization Pattern in the Intensive Care Unit of Tertiary Hospital in West Java, Indonesia. Int J Integr Heal Sci 2019; 7: 81–7.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Hadi U, Keuter M, … HVA. Optimizing antibiotic usage in adults admitted with fever by a multifaceted intervention in an Indonesian governmental hospital. Trop Med Int Heal 2008. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02080.x (accessed May 10, 2019).
  32. 32.
    Herawati F, Yulia R, Hak E, et al. A Retrospective Surveillance of the Antibiotics Prophylactic Use of Surgical Procedures in Private Hospitals in Indonesia. Hosp Pharm 2019; 54: 323–9.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Kartika N, Lestari E, Farida H, Ciptaningtyas VR. Kualitas dan Kuantitas Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Kasus Penyakit Dalam Sebelum dan Setelah Penyuluhan PPRA Di Rumah Sakit Nasional Diponegoro. Diponegoro Med J (Jurnal Kedokt Diponegoro) 2019; 8: 1306– 18.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    Kusuma A, Galistiani G, Wijayanti D. Evaluasi Kuantitatif Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Caesarean Section di RSUD se-Kabupaten Banyumas. J Farm Indones 2016; 8. http://www.jfionline.org/index.php/jurnal/article/view/245 (accessed May 8, 2019).
  35. 35.
    Putri Hadiningrat Ayunda, Akrom A, Risdiana I. Analisis penggunaan antibiotik pada pasien Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) di RS PKU Muhammadiyah Gamping. 2021 DOI:10.31603/PHARMACY.V7I1.3251.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.
    Yulia R, Yuaraningtyas G, Wijono H. Profil penggunaan antibiotik dan peta kuman di ruang rawat RS Husada Utama Surabaya. 2017. http://repository.ubaya.ac.id/31867/ (accessed May 7, 2019).
  37. 37.
    Pradipta IS, Ronasih E, Kartikawati AD, et al. Three years of antibacterial consumption in Indonesian Community Health Centers: The application of anatomical therapeutic chemical/defined daily doses and drug utilization 90% method to monitor antibacterial use. J Fam Community Med 2015; 22: 101.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    Muliani N, Herawati F, Yulia R, Wijono H. Quantity and quality profiles of antibiotics pre, on, and post surgery in a hospital setting. Int J Clin Pharm 2021. DOI:10.1007/s11096-021-01251-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Adani NL, Arkhaesi N, Anam M. Hubungan usia anak dan diagnosis dengan rasionalitas penggunaan antibiotik pada pasien anak di Puskesmas Rowosari Semarang. J Kedokt Diponegoro 2015; 4: 1277–85.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.
    Magdalena R, Bachtiar A. Antimicrobial Resistance Control Program on The Rational Use of Antibiotics In Eka Hospital Pekanbaru, Indonesia. publications.inschool.id 2018. http://publications.inschool.id/index.php/icash/article/view/258 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  41. 41.
    Yoanitha N, Wirakusumah F, Sukarsa R. Gambaran Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik berdasarkan Kriteria Gyssens di Bangsal Obstetri dan Ginekologi RSUP Dr. Hasan Sadikin Bandung. obgynia.com 2018. http://www.obgynia.com/obgyn/index.php/obgynia/article/view/37 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  42. 42.
    Setiawan S, Widyati W, Harijono P. Profil Penggunaan Antibiotik Pascapencanangan Penerapan Program Pengendalian Resistensi Antibiotik di Intensive Care Unit Rumah Sakit TNI-AL dr. Ramelan. J Farm Klin Indones 2018; 7: 30–7.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.
    Purwaningsih AEDA, Rahmawati F, Wahyono D. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik Pada Pasien Pediatri Di Bangsal Rawat Inap Rumah Sakit Islam Sultan Agung Semarang. 2015. http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/index.php?act=view&buku_id=83867&mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&typ=html (accessed May 9, 2019).
  44. 44.
    Muthoharoh A, Iana ND, Rahmatullah S, Wirasti W. Evaluasi kualitatif penggunaan antibiotika profilaksis di instalasi bedah sentral secara retrospektif. 2019 http://repository.urecol.org/index.php/proceeding/article/view/386 (accessed May 8, 2019).
  45. 45.
    Hanifah H, Sari I, Nuryastuti T. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik Empiris dan Analisis Biaya Demam Tifoid di Sebuah RS Swasta Kota Semarang. jsfk.ffarmasi.unand.ac.id 2018; 5: 1– 6.
  46. 46.
    Inez A, Susanti Program Studi Farmasi R, Kedokteran Universtas Tanjungpura Jl Profesor Dokter Hadari Nawawi FH, et al. Evaluasi Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Anak Rawat Inap di Rumah Sakit Universitas Tanjungpura Periode Januari-Juni 2018 Evaluation of Antibiotic Rationality for Pediatric Inpatient at Hospital of Tanjungpura University Period. 2019 https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jmfarmasi/article/view/37615 (accessed Feb 7, 2021).
  47. 47.↵
    Rosdiana D, Anggraini D, Balmas M, Effendi D, Bet A. Peningkatan Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik Pasca Implementasi Kebijakan Penggunaan Antimikroba di RSUD Arifin Achmad Pekanbaru. J Kedokt Brawijaya 2018; 30: 36–40.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.
    Aljufri AQ, Yasin NM, Wahyono D. Rasionalitas Terapi Antibiotik Empiris Pada Pasien Pneumonia di Instalasi Rawat Inap RSUP Dr. Kariadi Semarang. Maj Farm 2021; 17: 89.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.
    Anggraini ENF, Wicaksono A, Armyanti I. Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Kasus Typhus Abdominalis di Puskesmas Siantan Hilir Kota Pontianak Tahun 2014. J Mhs PSPD FK Univ Tanjungpura 2018; 2. http://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jfk/article/view/23543 (accessed May 8, 2019).
  50. 50.
    Hardiana I, Ratih Laksmitawati D, Utami Ramadaniati H, et al. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotika pada pasien pneumonia komunitas di instalasi rawat inap RSPAD Gatot Subroto. Orig Artic MFF 2021; 25: 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.
    Waridiarto DS, Agus Priambodo, Endang Sri Lestari. Kualitas penggunaan antibiotik pada kasus bedah orthopedi di bangsal bedah RSUP Dr. Kariadi. Media Med Muda 2015; 4: 618–25.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.
    Maakh DT, Da A, Fraga SS, Firdaus A. Rationality Evaluation of The Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics In Sectio Caesarea Patients In Hospitals. Mgr. Gabriel Manek, Svd Atambua in 2018. Universitas Citra Bangsa, 2019 http://www.cyber-chmk.net/ojs/index.php/farmasi/article/view/641 (accessed Feb 4, 2021).
  53. 53.
    Ibrahim AM, Widyati W, Prasetyadi FOH. Analisis Kualitatif Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Rujukan dengan Metode Analisis Alur Gyssen di RSPAL Dr. Ramelan Surabaya. MPI (Media Pharm Indones 2020; 3: 88.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.
    Sumiwi SA. Quality of Antibiotics Use in Patients with Digestive Surgery in Hospital in Bandung City. Indones J Clin Pharm 2014; 3: 135–40.
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Sutrisno E, Humardewayanti R, Bayupurnama P. Impact of irrational antibiotic therapy to hospital cost of care of pneumonia in patients in Dr. Sardjito Hospital. Acta Interna J Intern Med 2013; 3: 67–71.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Harartasyahrani RA, Simamora S. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotik profilaksis pada pasien bedah kategori highly recommended di rumah sakit “X” kota Prabumulih. J Muara Sains, Teknol Kedokt dan Ilmu Kesehat 2021; 5: 121.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    Ovikariani S, Saptawat T, Rahma FA. Evaluasi Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik Pada Pasien Ispa Di. J Ilmu Keperawatan dan Kebidanan STIKES Telogorejo 2019; XI: 76–82.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.
    Ofisya M, Laviesta, Susanti R, Purwanti NU. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotik pada pasien pneumonia rawat inap di RSUD dr. Soedarso Pontianak. 2020 https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jmfarmasi/article/view/42256 (accessed Feb 7, 2021).
  59. 59.
    Grassella, Yuswar MA, Purwanti NU. Studi rasionalitas penggunaan antibiotik dan interaksi obat pada pasien anak terdiagnosis Infeksi Saluran Pernapasan Akut (ISPA) di instalasi rawat jalan RSUD Sultan Syarif Mohamad Alkadrie Pontianak tahun 2018. J Mhs Farm Fak Kedokt UNTAN 2019; 4. https://jurnal.untan.ac.id/index.php/jmfarmasi/article/view/35316 (accessed Feb 7, 2021).
  60. 60.
    Hasyul SFP, Puspitan T, Nuari DA, Muntaqin EP, Wartini E, Eka MY. Evaluasi penggunaan obat antibiotik pada pasien demam tifoid di Kabupaten Garut pada Januari-Desember 2017. J Ilm Farm Bahari 2019; 10: 160–70.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    Jamiati J, Abadi H, Sari M. Evaluasi Peresepan Antibiotik Pada Pasien Rawat Jalan di Puskesmas Dabun Gelang Kabupaten Gayo Lues. J Dunia Farm 2019; 3: 115–22.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.
    Fakhrunnisa F, Andrajadi R, Radji M. Quality of Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Disease in Primary Healthcare Centers in the District of Tegal, Central Java, Indonesia. Indones J Clin Pharm 2020; 9: 95.
  63. 63.
    Anggraini AB, Syachroni. Penggunaan Antibiotik Profilaksis pada Bedah Bersih di Rumah Sakit di Jakarta. J Penelit dan Pengemb Pelayanan Kesehat 2020; 4: 7–12.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.
    Dewi R, Sutrisno D, Medina F, et al. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik Infeksi Saluran Pernapasan Atas pada Anak di Puskesmas Olak Kemang Kota Jambi Tahun 2018 Evaluation of Antibiotic Use for Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Children in Olak Kemang Public Health Center, Jambi in 2018. 2020 DOI:10.30595/PHARMACY.V17I1.6936.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.
    Dewi R, Sutrisno D, Purnamasari R. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Balita dengan Diagnosa Infeksi Saluran Pernapasan Atas di Puskesmas Koni Kota Jambi. J Sains Kes 2020 2020; 2: 385–90.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Kaparang PC, Tjitrosantoso H, Yamlean PV. Evaluasi kerasionalan penggunaan antibiotika pada pengobatan pneumonia anak di instalasi rawat inap RSUP Prof. Dr. R. D. Kandou manado periode Januari-Desember 2013. PHARMACON 2014; 3. https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/pharmacon/article/view/5440 (accessed May 13, 2019).
  67. 67.
    Herlina D, Hasina R, Dewi NMAR. Pola peresepan antibiotik pada pasien infeksi saluran kemih di instalasi rawat jalan RSUD Provinsi NTB tahun 2017. Sasambo J Pharm 2021; 2: 11–5.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.
    Zazuli Z, Sukandar EY, Lisni I. Evaluasi Penggunaan Obat pada Pasien Bedah di Suatu Rumah Sakit Swasta di Bandung. J Farm Klin Indones 2015; 4: 87–97.
  69. 69.
    Islam Z, Qodariyah SM, Nursehah ENE. Penggunaan Antibiotik Pada Terapi Community Acquired Pneumonia di RSUD Pasar Rebo dan RSUD Tarakan di Jakarta Tahun 2014. J Sains dan Teknol Farm 2017; 19: 1–8.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.
    Dania H, Baroroh F, Bachri MS. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik Pada Pasien Bedah Sesar Di Rumah Sakit PKU Muhammadiyah Bantul Yogyakarta. Pharm J Farm Indones 2016; 13. https://www.neliti.com/id/publications/161113/evaluasi-penggunaan-antibiotik-pada-pasien-bedah-sesar-di-rumah-sakit-pku-muhamm (accessed May 10, 2019).
  71. 71.
    Nyoman SMH N, Sumarsono T, Wahidatun N. Study on Use of Antibiotics for the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARIs) in Children at a Clinic in Bandung, Indonesia. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2017; 8: 158.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.
    Andrajati R, Tilaqza A, Supardi S. Factors related to rational antibiotic prescriptions in community health centers in Depok City, Indonesia. J Infect Public Health 2016; 10: 41–8.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.
    Dewi RS, Radji M, Andalusia R. Evaluation of Antibiotic Use Among Sepsis Patients in an Intensive Care Unit: A cross-sectional study at a referral hospital in Indonesia. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J [SQUMJ] 2018; 18: 367.
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.
    Bakhtiar, Makaba S, Hasmi, Mallongi A. Rationality of Antibiotic Drug Used to Medical Patient Post-Operatively in Selebe Solu Hospital Sorong City Papua Barat Province 2018. Int J Sci Healthc Res 2019; 4. http://ijshr.com/IJSHR_Vol.4_Issue.1_Jan2019/IJSHR0022.pdf (accessed May 9, 2019).
  75. 75.
    Sugiarti T, Sidemen A, Wiratmo. Studi Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Penyakit ISPA Usia Bawah Lima Tahun di Instalasi Rawat Jalan Puskesmas Sumbersari Periode 1 Januari-31 Maret 2014. jurnal.unej.ac.id 2015. https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/JPK/article/view/2583 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  76. 76.
    Rusdiana N, Safitri M, Resti A. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotika profilaksis pada pasien bedah sesar terencana di rumah sakit ibu dan anak “x” di Tangerang. Soc Clin Pharm Indones J 2016. http://journal.uta45jakarta.ac.id/index.php/SCPIJ/article/view/275 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  77. 77.
    Oktaviani F, Wahyono D, Yuniarti E. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotik profilaksis terhadap kejadian infeksi luka operasi pada operasi sectio caesarea. J Manaj DAN PELAYANAN Farm (Journal Manag Pharm Pract 2015. https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jmpf/article/view/29449 (accessed May 7, 2019).
  78. 78.
    Kurniawati H, Auliyanah A. Pattern of antibiotics use in adult patients with Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). 2021 DOI:10.20527/JBK.V17I1.10244.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. 79.
    Bestari MP, Karuniawati H. Evaluasi Rasionalitas dan Efektifitas Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Pneumonia Pediatrik di Instalasi Rawat Inap Rumah Sakit Pusat Jawa Tengah. Pharmacon J Farm Indones 2019; 14. DOI:10.23917/pharmacon.v14i2.6524.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.
    Limato R, Nelwan EJ, Mudia M, et al. A multicentre point prevalence survey of patterns and quality of antibiotic prescribing in Indonesian hospitals. JAC-Antimicrobial Resist 2021; : 1– 10.
  81. 81.
    Ridha Elvina, Nur Rahmi, Sandra Ayu Oktavira. Evaluasi penggunaan antibiotik pada pasien Community-Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) di instalasi rawat inap rumah sakit ‘X’ Jakarta. Pharmacy 2017; 14: 64–74.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.
    Risha Fillah Fithria, Akroman Rohmat Di’fain. Rasionalitas terapi antibiotik pada pasien diare akut anak usia 1-4 tahun di rumah sakit Banyumanik Semarang tahun 2013. Pharmacy 2015; 12: 197–209.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Nawakasari N, Nugraheni AY. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Infeksi Saluran Kemih di Instalasi Rawat Inap RSUP X di Klaten Tahun 2017. Pharmacon J Farm Indones 2019; 16: 38–48.
    OpenUrl
  84. 84.
    Octavia DR. Evaluasi Penggunaan Antibiotika Profilaksis pada Pasien Bedah Sesar. Indones J Heal Res 2019; 2: 23–30.
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    Benua GP, Tiwow GAR, Untu SD, Karauwan FA. Evaluasi Rasionalitas Penggunaan Antibiotik Pada Pasien ISPA Di Puskesmas Tonusu Kecamatan Pamona Puselemba Kabupaten Poso. J Biofarmasetikal Trop 2019; 2019: 136–40.
  86. 86.↵
    Karuniawati H, Yulianti T, Aini DK, Nurwienda FI. Impact of antimicrobial stewardship program on the use of antibiotics in pneumonia patients at teaching hospital in surakarta Indonesia. Int J Appl Pharm 2021; 13: 20–3.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Farida H, Herawati H, Hapsari M, Notoatmodjo H, Hardian H. Penggunaan Antibiotik Secara Bijak Untuk Mengurangi Resistensi Antibiotik, Studi Intervensi di Bagian Kesehatan Anak RS Dr. Kariadi. Sari Pediatr 2016; 10: 34.
  88. 88.↵
    Hapsari M, Farida H, Keuter M, PJ B, Pediatri UH-S, 2016 U. Penurunan Penggunaan Antibiotik pada Pasien Anak dengan Demam. Sari Pediatr 2006. https://saripediatri.org/index.php/sari-pediatri/article/download/816/751 (accessed May 7, 2019).
  89. 89.↵
    Murni IK, Duke T, Kinney S, Daley AJ, Soenarto Y. Reducing hospital-acquired infections and improving the rational use of antibiotics in a developing country: an effectiveness study. Arch Dis Child 2015; 100: 454–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    King J, Ciptaningtyas VR. Kuantitas penggunaan antibiotik sebelum dan setelah pembuatan Pedoman Penggunaan Antibiotik (PPAB). Penelitian pada kasus bedah digestif RSUP Dr. Kariadi Semarang. J Kedokt Diponegoro 2015; 4: 1072–82.
    OpenUrl
  91. 91.↵
    Lizikri A, Arozal W, Ramadaniati HU. Effects of Clinical Pathway Implementation in Management of Pediatric Inpatients with Pneumonia: A Cross-Sectional Study in Indonesia. Int J Res Pharm Sci 2020; 11: 7281–8.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.↵
    Dwiprahasto I. Ketersediaan obat di kabupaten dan mutu peresepan di pusat pelayanan kesehatan primer. Berkala Ilmu Kedokteran 2004. http://i-lib.ugm.ac.id/jurnal/detail.php?dataId=3283 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  93. 93.↵
    Widowati I, Wirawan I, Nopiyani N, Sari K. Pharmacist counseling intervention to improve patient antibiotic compliance. phpmajournal.org 2018. https://phpmajournal.org/index.php/phpma/article/view/158 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  94. 94.↵
    Artini I, Indrayani A. Penggunaan antibiotika secara mandiri pada mahasiswa kedokteran dan non kedokteran Universitas Udayana. ojs.unud.ac.id 2016. https://ojs.unud.ac.id/index.php/ach/article/view/27464 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  95. 95.↵
    Djawaria DAP, Setiadi AP, Setiawan E. Analisis Perilaku dan Faktor Penyebab Perilaku Penggunaan Antibiotik Tanpa Resep di Surabaya Behavior Behavior Analysis and Attributed Factors to Non Prescription Antibiotic Used in Surabaya. J MKMI 2018; 14. DOI:10.30597/mkmi.v14i4.5080.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  96. 96.↵
    Kurniawan K, Posangi J, Rampengan N. Association between public knowledge regarding antibiotics and self-medication with antibiotics in Teling Atas Community Health Center, East Indonesia. Med J Indones 2017; 26: 62.
    OpenUrl
  97. 97.
    Novelni R, Azyenela L, Septiana Y. Hubungan tingkat pendidikan masyarakat terhadap pengetahuan dalam penggunaan antibiotik oral di apotek Kecamatan Koto Tangah Padang. J Penelit Farm Indones 2020; 9: 2020.
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.↵
    Nuraini A, Yulia R, Herawati F, Setiasihi S. The Relation between Knowledge and Belief with Adult Patient’s Antibiotics Use Adherence. J Manaj DAN PELAYANAN Farm (Journal Manag Pharm Pract 2019; 8: 165.
    OpenUrl
  99. 99.↵
    Pratama AN, Rohmawati A, Rachmawati E. A survey of antibiotics purchased without prescription among non-health science students in Jember, Indonesia. J Farm Sains dan Komunitas 2018. https://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/JFSK/article/view/1032 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  100. 100.↵
    Salsabila NN, Kristina SA. Awareness on antibiotic resistance among lay people in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Int Jounral Pharm Res 2021; 12: 180–8.
    OpenUrl
  101. 101.↵
    Siahaan S, Usia T, Pujiati S, et al. Pengetahuan, sikap, dan perilaku masyarakat dalam memilih obat yang aman di tiga Provinsi di Indonesia. neliti.com 2017. https://www.neliti.com/publications/178574/pengetahuan-sikap-dan-perilaku-masyarakat-dalam-memilih-obat-yang-aman-di-tiga-p (accessed May 7, 2019).
  102. 102.↵
    Tandjung H, Wiyono WI, Mpila DA. Pengetahuan dan penggunaan antibiotik secara swamedikasi pada masyarakat di kota Manado. 2021 DOI:10.35799/PHA.10.2021.34044.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  103. 103.↵
    WHO. Antibiotic Resistance: Multi-Country Public Awareness Survey. WHO Press 2015; : 1–51.
  104. 104.↵
    Widayati A, Suryawati S, de Crespigny C, Hiller JE. Self medication with antibiotics in Yogyakarta City Indonesia: a cross sectional population-based survey. BMC Res Notes 2011; 4: 491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. 105.↵
    Widayati A, Suryawati S, de Crespigny C, Hiller JE. Knowledge and beliefs about antibiotics among people in Yogyakarta City Indonesia: a cross sectional population-based survey. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2012; 1: 38.
  106. 106.↵
    Fatmah S, Aini SR, Pratama IS. Tingkat Pengetahuan Mahasiswa Tahun Pertama Bersama (TPB) tentang Penggunaan Antibiotik dalam Swamedikasi. J Sains Farm Klin 2019; 6: 200.
  107. 107.
    Yulia R, Putri R, Wahyudi R. Studi Tingkat Pengetahuan Masyarakat terhadap Penggunaan Antibiotik di Puskesmas Rasimah Ahmad Bukittinggi. J Pharm Sci 2019; 2: 43–8.
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.
    Yuliani NN, Wijaya C, Moeda G. Tingkat pengetahuan masyarakat RW IV Kelurahan Fontein Kota Kupang terhadap penggunaan antibiotik. 2014 https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/259672-tingkat-pengetahuan-masyarakat-rwiv-kelu-a98691f1.pdf (accessed May 10, 2019).
  109. 109.↵
    Fernandez ABM. Studi Penggunaan Antibiotik Tanpa Resep Di Kabupaten Manggarai dan Manggarai Barat – NTT. 2013; 2: 1–17.
  110. 110.↵
    Fimanggara B, Istriati, Diposarosa R. Knowledge and Attitude towards Antibiotic Use among College Students in Jatinangor. journal.fk.unpad.ac.id 2016. http://journal.fk.unpad.ac.id/index.php/amj/article/view/792 (accessed May 9, 2019).
  111. 111.↵
    Fitriah R, Mardiati N, Tinggi S, et al. Pengaruh faktor sosiodemografi terhadap pengetahuan dan sikap pada penggunaan antibiotik di kalangan masyarakat pedesaan: Studi observasional di kecamatan Cempaka Banjarbaru. 2021 DOI:10.31603/PHARMACY.V7I1.3181.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  112. 112.↵
    Hamid F, Rasmin Kotto F, Prasetia W. Karakteristik Pengguna Antibiotik tanpa Resep Dokter di Kalangan Guru Kecamatan Labakkang, Kabupaten Pangkajene dan Kepulauan. 2020 DOI:10.24252/ALAMI.V4I2.15157.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  113. 113.
    Insany AN, Dika P. Destiani, Anwar Sani, Lilik Sabdaningtyas, Ivan S. Pradipta. Association between Perceived Value and Self-Medication with Antibiotics: An Observational Study Based on Health Belief Model Theory. J Farm Klin Indones 2015; 4: 77–86.
    OpenUrl
  114. 114.↵
    Kondoj IV, Lolo WA, Jayanto I. Pengaruh Tingkat Pengetahuan Dan Sikap Terhadap Penggunaan Antibiotik Di Apotek Kimia Farma 396 Tuminting Kota Manado. Pharmacon 2020; 9.
  115. 115.↵
    Kristina SA, Wati R, Prasetyo SD, Fortwengel G. Public knowledge and awareness towards antibiotics use in Yogyakarta: A cross sectional survey. Pharm Sci Asia 2020. DOI:10.29090/psa.2020.02.019.0008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  116. 116.↵
    Asvinigita LRM, Ikapuspitasari;, Kristina SA. Antibiotics stewardship practice among community pharmacists in indonesia: A cross-sectional survey. Int J Pharm Res 2019; 11: 176–81.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Siswati S. Analisis penggunaan antibiotika yang tidak rasional pada balita penderita bukan penumonia di kota Padang. Lembaga Penelitian, Universitas Negeri Padang, 2009 http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/sainstek/article/view/153 (accessed May 8, 2019).
  118. 118.↵
    Zhang J, Cameron D, Quak SH, et al. Rates and determinants of antibiotics and probiotics prescription to children in Asia-Pacific countries. Benef Microbes 2020; 11: 329–38.
    OpenUrl
  119. 119.↵
    Wulandari LPL, Khan M, Liverani M, et al. Prevalence and determinants of inappropriate antibiotic dispensing at private drug retail outlets in urban and rural areas of Indonesia: A mixed methods study. BMJ Glob Heal 2021; 6: 1–11.
    OpenUrl
  120. 120.↵
    Arshad M, Mahmood SF, Khan M, Hasan R. Covid -19, misinformation, and antimicrobial resistance. BMJ 2020; 371: 1–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    CDDEP. Resistance Map: Indonesia Use Data. 2021. https://resistancemap.cddep.org/CountryPage.php?countryId=77&country=Indonesia+ (accessed May 31, 2021).
  122. 122.↵
    Thamlikitkul V, Rattanaumpawan P, Sirijatuphat R, Wangchinda W. Integrated one-day surveillance of antimicrobial use, antimicrobial consumption, antimicrobial resistance, healthcare-associated infection, and antimicrobial resistance burden among hospitalized patients in Thailand. J Infect 2020; 81: 98–106.
    OpenUrl
  123. 123.
    Singh SK, Sengupta S, Antony R, et al. Variations in antibiotic use across India: multi-centre study through Global Point Prevalence survey. J Hosp Infect 2019; 103: 280–3.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.
    Saleem Z, Hassali MA, Versporten A, et al. A multicenter point prevalence survey of antibiotic use in Punjab, Pakistan: findings and implications. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2019; 17: 285–93.
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.
    Xie D shuang, Xiang L li, Li R, Hu Q, Luo Q qin, Xiong W. A multicenter point-prevalence survey of antibiotic use in 13 Chinese hospitals. J Infect Public Health 2015; 8: 55–61.
    OpenUrl
  126. 126.↵
    Thu TA, Rahman M, Coffin S, Harun-Or-Rashid M, Sakamoto J, Hung NV. Antibiotic use in Vietnamese hospitals: A multicenter point-prevalence study. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 840–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  127. 127.↵
    Versporten A, Zarb P, Caniaux I, et al. Antimicrobial consumption and resistance in adult hospital inpatients in 53 countries: results of an internet-based global point prevalence survey. Lancet Glob Heal 2018; 6: e619–29.
    OpenUrl
  128. 128.↵
    Saleem Z, Hassali MA, Godman B, et al. Point prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use: a systematic review and the implications. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2020; 18: 897–910.
    OpenUrl
  129. 129.↵
    Klein EY, Milkowska-Shibata M, Tseng KK, et al. Assessment of WHO antibiotic consumption and access targets in 76 countries, 2000–15: an analysis of pharmaceutical sales data. Lancet Infect Dis 2021; 21: 107–15.
    OpenUrl
  130. 130.↵
    Schwartz KL, Langford BJ, Daneman N, et al. Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in a Canadian primary care setting: a descriptive analysis using routinely collected electronic medical record data. C Open 2020; 8: E360–9.
  131. 131.↵
    Gasson J, Blockman M, Willems B. Antibiotic prescribing practice and adherence to guidelines in primary care in the cape town Metro district, South Africa. South African Med J 2018; 108: 304–10.
    OpenUrl
  132. 132.↵
    Wang J, Wang P, Wang X, Zheng Y, Xiao Y. Use and prescription of antibiotics in primary health care settings in China. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 1914–20.
    OpenUrl
  133. 133.↵
    Sarwar MR, Saqib A, Iftikhar S, Sadiq T. Antimicrobial use by WHO methodology at primary health care centers: a cross sectional study in Punjab, Pakistan. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18: 1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  134. 134.↵
    Minh NNQ, van Toi P, Qui LM, et al. Antibiotic use and prescription and its effects on Enterobacteriaceae in the gut in children with mild respiratory infections in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A prospective observational outpatient study. PLoS One 2020; 15: 1–18.
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.↵
    Sulis G, Adam P, Nafade V, et al. Antibiotic prescription practices in primary care in low- And middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020; 17: 1–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    Chaw PS, Höpner J, Mikolajczyk R. The knowledge, attitude and practice of health practitioners towards antibiotic prescribing and resistance in developing countries—A systematic review. J Clin Pharm Ther 2018; 43: 606–13.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.↵
    Md Rezal RS, Hassali MA, Alrasheedy AA, Saleem F, Md Yusof FA, Godman B. Physicians’ knowledge, perceptions and behaviour towards antibiotic prescribing: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2015; 13: 665–80.
    OpenUrl
  138. 138.↵
    Monnier AA, Eisenstein BI, Hulscher ME, Gyssens IC. Towards a global definition of responsible antibiotic use: Results of an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018; 73: vi3–16.
  139. 139.↵
    Le Maréchal M, Tebano G, Monnier AA, et al. Quality indicators assessing antibiotic use in the outpatient setting: A systematic review followed by an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018; 73: vi40–9.
  140. 140.↵
    Schuts EC, Hulscher MEJL, Mouton JW, et al. Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16: 847–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. 141.↵
    Karanika S, Paudel S, Grigoras C, Kalbasi A, Mylonakis E. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and economic outcomes from the implementation of hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2016; 60: 4840–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  142. 142.↵
    Hospital Accreditation Committee. Standard Hospital Accreditation 1st Edition. 2017.
  143. 143.↵
    Herawati F, Ananta SC, Parwitha IAA, et al. Interview-based cross-sectional needs assessment to advance the implementation of an effective antibiotic stewardship program in Indonesian hospitals. Heal Policy OPEN 2020; 1: 100002.
  144. 144.↵
    Lee TH, Lye DC, Chung DR, et al. Antimicrobial stewardship capacity and manpower needs in the Asia Pacific. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2021; 24: 387–94.
    OpenUrl
  145. 145.↵
    Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 Tentang Program Pengendalian Resistensi Antimikroba di Rumah Sakit. Indonesia, 2015.
  146. 146.↵
    Direktorat Pelayanan Kesehatan Rujukan DJPKKKRI. Panduan Penatagunaan Antimikroba di Rumah Sakit Edisi 1. 2021.
  147. 147.↵
    Wilkinson A, Ebata A, Macgregor H. Interventions to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in LMICs: A Scoping Review of Evidence from Human and Animal Health Systems. Antibiot (Basel, Switzerland) 2018; 8. DOI:10.3390/ANTIBIOTICS8010002.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  148. 148.↵
    Van Katwyk SR, Grimshaw JM, Nkangu M, et al. Government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use: A systematic review and evidence map. PLOS Med 2019; 16: e1002819.
  149. 149.↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC. Core elements of hospital antibiotic stewardship programs. US Dep Heal Hum Serv CDC 2019; : 40.
  150. 150.↵
    Dijck C Van, Vlieghe E, Janneke &, Cox A. Systematic reviews Antibiotic stewardship interventions in hospitals in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bull World Heal Organ 2018; 96: 266–80.
    OpenUrl
  151. 151.↵
    Burke JP. Antibiotic Resistance — Squeezing the BalloonLJ? Jama 1998; 280: 1270–1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  152. 152.↵
    Auta A, Hadi MA, Oga E, et al. Global access to antibiotics without prescription in community pharmacies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2019; 78: 8–18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  153. 153.↵
    Nepal G, Bhatta S. Self-medication with Antibiotics in WHO Southeast Asian Region: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2018; 10: e2428.
  154. 154.↵
    Chua AQ, Verma M, Hsu LY, Legido-Quigley H. An analysis of national action plans on antimicrobial resistance in Southeast Asia using a governance framework approach. Lancet Reg Heal - West Pacific 2021; 7: 100084.
  155. 155.↵
    WHO. Global antimicrobial resistance and use surveillance system (GLASS) report. Geneva, 2021 http://www.who.int/glass/resources/publications/early-implementation-report-2020/en/.
  156. 156.↵
    Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia. Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2021 Tentang Pedoman Penggunaan Antibiotik. 2021.
  157. 157.↵
    Bloom G, Merrett GB, Wilkinson A, Lin V, Paulin S. Antimicrobial resistance and universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Heal 2017; 2: e000518.
  158. 158.↵
    ReAct - Action on Antibiotic Resistance. Antimicrobial resistance and universal health coverage What’s the deal? 2019 https://www.reactgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Antimicrobial-resistance-and-universal-health-coverage-Whats-the-deal-ReAct-Sept-2019.pdf (accessed Dec 26, 2021).
Back to top
Posted February 22, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Optimizing antibiotic use in Indonesia: a systematic review and synthesis of current evidence to inform opportunities for intervention
Ralalicia Limato, Gilbert Lazarus, Puck Dernison, Manzilina Mudia, Monik Alamanda, Erni J. Nelwan, Robert Sinto, Anis Karuniawati, H. Rogier van Doorn, Raph L. Hamers
medRxiv 2022.02.20.22271261; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.20.22271261
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area