RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Views and experiences of Antimicrobial Stewardship interventions in paediatric secondary care settings: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.05.29.24308153
DO 10.1101/2024.05.29.24308153
A1 Mate, Nirzer
A1 Vergnano, Stefania
A1 Cabral, Christie
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/05/31/2024.05.29.24308153.abstract
AB Objectives Injudicious use of antimicrobial agents contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) interventions use strategies derived from evidence-based practices to ensure careful use of antibiotics. AMS is less common in paediatrics as compared to adult practice. As AMS success depends on organizational factors and individual behaviours, this study synthesizes the existing qualitative evidence exploring key barriers, facilitators, and acceptability of AMS.Design A systematic search of primary qualitative studies was conducted in electronic databases.Data sources MEDLINE, PsychINFO via OVID, CINAHL electronic database and handsearching of grey literature sources was done.Eligibility criteria Qualitative studies exploring parents” and/or clinicians” (doctors and nurses) views, attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge on antimicrobial stewardship programmes in paediatric and neonatal hospitals.Data extraction and synthesis Quality appraisal was done using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. The extracted data was then synthesised by drawing on meta-ethnography.Results A total of 6 studies met the inclusion criteria. 5 studies reported the views and experiences of doctors and nurses, and 1 study reported those of parents. The perceived value of AMS differed in neonatal and paediatric contexts. Structural barriers like resource allocation and hospital organization were a barrier to implementation and acceptability. Nurses reported a lack of formal education about AMS as a barrier.Conclusion/Implications The factors affecting AMS in paediatric secondary care vary with the stakeholders in question. This review identifies some of the factors that can be used to formulate service-level AMS interventions and programmes.Strengths and limitations of the studyThis is the first evidence synthesis of the qualitative literature exploring the beliefs and experiences of parents and clinicians regarding paediatric AMS.The facilitators and barriers were identified from themes representative of all the included studies, increasing their validity.While included studies were conducted across six countries, all were within the developed world which could limit the generalisability of the findings.A limited number of studies was included due to limited number of primary studies conducted in this area.Original protocol from PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42022346842Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022346842 The process for data synthesis was changed from thematic analysis to meta-ethnography to accommodate the variety of ways in which the results were reported in the included studies.Competing Interest StatementChristie Cabral acknowledges support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There are no other competing interests.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022346842 Funding StatementChristie Cabral acknowledges support from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The data used is reported in the results section of the included studies and is anonymised and publicly available. The studies have been cited in the manuscript.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.