Cargando…
The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review
BACKGROUND: The public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) is prevalent worldwide. This study aims to synthesize evidence on how people use antibiotics to treat URTIs, its prevalence and determinants. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was cond...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36339167 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.985188 |
_version_ | 1784824026418380800 |
---|---|
author | Duan, Lixia Liu, Chaojie Wang, Dan Lin, Rujiao Qian, Pan Zhang, Xinping Liu, Chenxi |
author_facet | Duan, Lixia Liu, Chaojie Wang, Dan Lin, Rujiao Qian, Pan Zhang, Xinping Liu, Chenxi |
author_sort | Duan, Lixia |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) is prevalent worldwide. This study aims to synthesize evidence on how people use antibiotics to treat URTIs, its prevalence and determinants. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted using a convergent segregated approach. Relevant studies were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. A qualitative analysis was initiated, exploring the public's antibiotic use experience for URTIS based on the Consumer Behavior Model (CBM). This was followed by a quantitative synthesis, tapping into the prevalence and predictors of public behavior in antibiotic usage for URTIs. The segregated syntheses complemented each other and were further integrated. RESULTS: A total of 86 studies were included: 48 quantitative, 30 qualitative, eight mixed methods studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe (n = 29), Asia (n = 27) and North America (n = 21), assessing the behaviors of patients (n = 46), their parents or caregivers (n = 31), or both (n = 9). Eleven themes emerged covering the six CBM stages: need recognition, information searching, alternative evaluation, antibiotic obtaining, antibiotic consumption, and post-consumption evaluation. The six stages reinforce each other, forming a vicious cycle. The high prevalence of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for URTIs is evident despite the high heterogeneity of the studies (ranging from 0.0 to 92.7%). The perceived seriousness of illness and misbelief in antibiotics were identified consistently across the studies as the major motivation driving the public's irrational use of antibiotics for URTIs. However, individual capacity (e.g., knowledge) and opportunity (e.g., contextual restriction) in reducing antibiotic use have mixed effect. CONCLUSION: Systemic interventions concerning both supply and demand sides are warranted. The public needs to be educated about the appropriate management of URTIs and health care providers need to re-shape public attitudes toward antibiotic use for URTIs through communication and prescribing practices. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier: CRD42021266407. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9632431 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96324312022-11-04 The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review Duan, Lixia Liu, Chaojie Wang, Dan Lin, Rujiao Qian, Pan Zhang, Xinping Liu, Chenxi Front Public Health Public Health BACKGROUND: The public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) is prevalent worldwide. This study aims to synthesize evidence on how people use antibiotics to treat URTIs, its prevalence and determinants. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted using a convergent segregated approach. Relevant studies were searched from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science. A qualitative analysis was initiated, exploring the public's antibiotic use experience for URTIS based on the Consumer Behavior Model (CBM). This was followed by a quantitative synthesis, tapping into the prevalence and predictors of public behavior in antibiotic usage for URTIs. The segregated syntheses complemented each other and were further integrated. RESULTS: A total of 86 studies were included: 48 quantitative, 30 qualitative, eight mixed methods studies. The included studies were conducted in Europe (n = 29), Asia (n = 27) and North America (n = 21), assessing the behaviors of patients (n = 46), their parents or caregivers (n = 31), or both (n = 9). Eleven themes emerged covering the six CBM stages: need recognition, information searching, alternative evaluation, antibiotic obtaining, antibiotic consumption, and post-consumption evaluation. The six stages reinforce each other, forming a vicious cycle. The high prevalence of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for URTIs is evident despite the high heterogeneity of the studies (ranging from 0.0 to 92.7%). The perceived seriousness of illness and misbelief in antibiotics were identified consistently across the studies as the major motivation driving the public's irrational use of antibiotics for URTIs. However, individual capacity (e.g., knowledge) and opportunity (e.g., contextual restriction) in reducing antibiotic use have mixed effect. CONCLUSION: Systemic interventions concerning both supply and demand sides are warranted. The public needs to be educated about the appropriate management of URTIs and health care providers need to re-shape public attitudes toward antibiotic use for URTIs through communication and prescribing practices. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier: CRD42021266407. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9632431/ /pubmed/36339167 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.985188 Text en Copyright © 2022 Duan, Liu, Wang, Lin, Qian, Zhang and Liu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Public Health Duan, Lixia Liu, Chaojie Wang, Dan Lin, Rujiao Qian, Pan Zhang, Xinping Liu, Chenxi The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title | The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title_full | The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title_fullStr | The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title_short | The vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods systematic review |
title_sort | vicious cycle of the public's irrational use of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a mixed methods systematic review |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9632431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36339167 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.985188 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT duanlixia theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT liuchaojie theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT wangdan theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT linrujiao theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT qianpan theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT zhangxinping theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT liuchenxi theviciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT duanlixia viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT liuchaojie viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT wangdan viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT linrujiao viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT qianpan viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT zhangxinping viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview AT liuchenxi viciouscycleofthepublicsirrationaluseofantibioticsforupperrespiratorytractinfectionsamixedmethodssystematicreview |