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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duan, Lixia, Liu, Chaojie, Wang, Dan, Lin, Rujiao, Qian, Pan, Zhang, Xinping, Liu, Chenxi
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