IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227973.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surveys of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in general population: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Hathairat Kosiyaporn
  • Sunicha Chanvatik
  • Tibet Issaramalai
  • Wanwisa Kaewkhankhaeng
  • Anond Kulthanmanusorn
  • Nithiwat Saengruang
  • Woranan Witthayapipopsakul
  • Shaheda Viriyathorn
  • Supapat Kirivan
  • Watinee Kunpeuk
  • Rapeepong Suphanchaimat
  • Angkana Lekagul
  • Viroj Tangcharoensathien

Abstract

Background: Currently, various tools exist to evaluate knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and are applied by various organizations. Previous systematic reviews have focused mainly on study findings such as levels of knowledge and AMR awareness. However, the survey procedures and data instruments used ought to be scrutinized as well, since they are important contributors to credible results. This review aims to assess the study methods and procedures of existing population-based surveys and explore key components which determine the general population’s levels of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and AMR. Methods: We searched existing literature for population -based surveys which sought knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use or AMR in the general population. Databases searched included Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus, domestic journals and gray literature sources. Population-based cross-sectional studies published in English or Thai from January 2000 to December 2018 were included in the review. Quality assessment was conducted using the ‘Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies’ (AXIS). Results: All 22 studies included in the analysis had clear objectives focusing on assessing people’s levels of knowledge, awareness, attitudes and behavior relating to antibiotic use and awareness of AMR. These studies had employed appropriate methodologies for population-based cross-sectional surveys relative to research questions. More than half of studies (14 out of 22) had scientifically soundly designed methodologies which captured the representativeness of the population; whereas the remaining studies had unclear sample size estimations, inappropriate sample frames and selection biases. Half of the studies had tested the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The common questions used by these surveys were categorized into four themes: behavior related to antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use, knowledge and awareness of AMR and others such as receiving information about antibiotic use and AMR or cross-cutting issues like self-medication. Conclusion: This review identified four key features of good practices in antibiotic use and awareness surveys: a) clear survey objective; b) scientifically sound sampling techniques ensuring representativeness; c) strategies for recruitment of samples and survey administration methods; and d) credible measurement to prevent non-sampling biases. During questionnaire design, the health systems context in terms of access to health services and antibiotics should be taken into account. In conclusion, to maximize the use of surveys, the application of findings in surveys and associated factors related to antibiotic use and AMR should primarily generate public health interventions and target specific groups to make progress in solving AMR problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Hathairat Kosiyaporn & Sunicha Chanvatik & Tibet Issaramalai & Wanwisa Kaewkhankhaeng & Anond Kulthanmanusorn & Nithiwat Saengruang & Woranan Witthayapipopsakul & Shaheda Viriyathorn & Supapat Kirivan, 2020. "Surveys of knowledge and awareness of antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in general population: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227973
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227973
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227973&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227973?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227973. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.