Display options
Share it on

BMJ Glob Health. 2019 May 09;4(3):e001239. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001239. eCollection 2019.

How to improve antibiotic awareness campaigns: findings of a WHO global survey.

BMJ global health

Benedikt Huttner, Mirko Saam, Lorenzo Moja, Karen Mah, Marc Sprenger, Stephan Harbarth, Nicola Magrini

Affiliations

  1. Infection Control Program and Division of Infectious Diseases, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
  2. World Health Organization, Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
  3. Communications in Science, Geneva, Switzerland.
  4. World Health Organization, Antimicrobial Resistance Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.

PMID: 31179029 PMCID: PMC6528771 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001239

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to examine the characteristics of antibiotic awareness campaigns (AAC) conducted on a national or regional level since 2010.

METHODS: In October 2016, the WHO invited stakeholders involved in the planning or conduct of AACs to answer a web questionnaire. We solicited general information about the characteristics of the AAC, with a particular focus on key messages supporting optimal use of antibiotics.

RESULTS: Stakeholders in 93 countries were contacted and 55 countries responded. Overall, 60 AACs from 16 low/middle-income countries (LMIC) and 31 high-income countries were identified. Forty-five campaigns (75%) were conducted on a national level and most of them (47/60; 78%) were organised by public health authorities and publicly funded. There were no major differences between LMICs and high-income countries in the types of key messages. The scientifically questionable 'Finish your prescription' slogan was used by 31 AACs (52%). A One Health approach was mentioned in 13/60 AACs (22%). Most messages were universally applicable; adaptation to locally prevalent public misconceptions was not systematic. The evaluation of the impact of campaigns was still incomplete, as only 18 AACs (30%) assessed their impact on antibiotic use.

CONCLUSION: For future AACs, it seems essential to base messages more rigorously on scientific evidence, context specificities and behavioural change theory. A new generation of messages that encourage first-choice use of narrow spectrum antibiotics is needed, reflecting international efforts to preserve broad spectrum antibiotic classes. Evaluation of the impact of AACs remains suboptimal.

Keywords: World Health Organization; anti-bacterial agents; awareness; bacterial; drug resistance; drug resistance, bacterial; global health; health communication; health education

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: SH is a temporary member of the speakers’ bureau for Takeda and the scientific advisory boards of DNA Electronics, Sandoz and Bayer. He has received financial support for investig

References

  1. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002 Dec;8(12):1460-7 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 6;354(14):1455-63 - PubMed
  3. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007 Mar-Apr;39(2 Suppl):S5-12 - PubMed
  4. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008 Apr;14(4):298-306 - PubMed
  5. Health Educ Res. 2009 Jun;24(3):483-95 - PubMed
  6. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Nov;14(11):1722-30 - PubMed
  7. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Dec;8(12):785-95 - PubMed
  8. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Sep 1;49(5):750-6 - PubMed
  9. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Jan;10(1):17-31 - PubMed
  10. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 Jul;65(7):1526-33 - PubMed
  11. Curr Drug Saf. 2010 Oct;5(4):329-32 - PubMed
  12. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2011 Oct;11(5):446-52 - PubMed
  13. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 Dec;66(12):2872-9 - PubMed
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD006777 - PubMed
  15. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Mar;67(3):763-7 - PubMed
  16. Eur J Health Econ. 2013 Aug;14(4):587-99 - PubMed
  17. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013 Apr;26(2):289-307 - PubMed
  18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 06;(6):CD004704 - PubMed
  19. Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Jul;63(612):e429-36 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2013 Sep 12;347:f5391 - PubMed
  21. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):71-7 - PubMed
  22. N Engl J Med. 2013 Dec 26;369(26):2474-6 - PubMed
  23. BMC Public Health. 2014 Jun 18;14:616 - PubMed
  24. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 27;9(8):e104556 - PubMed
  25. Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Nov 7;281(1794):20140566 - PubMed
  26. Euro Surveill. 2014 Oct 16;19(41):null - PubMed
  27. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;36(2):142-52 - PubMed
  28. J Health Commun. 2015;20(12):1433-40 - PubMed
  29. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 1;62(3):403-4 - PubMed
  30. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Jan;71(1):27-33 - PubMed
  31. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 15;17(10):e233 - PubMed
  32. Lancet. 2016 Jan 9;387(10014):176-87 - PubMed
  33. BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 25;15:545 - PubMed
  34. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2016;14(4):403-13 - PubMed
  35. BMJ. 2016 Mar 15;352:i939 - PubMed
  36. JAMA. 2016 May 3;315(17):1864-73 - PubMed
  37. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Sep 1;176(9):1254-5 - PubMed
  38. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Jan;72(1):311-314 - PubMed
  39. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2016 Oct 20;5:39 - PubMed
  40. BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Nov 3;17(1):148 - PubMed
  41. JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2115-2125 - PubMed
  42. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Apr 1;72(4):975-987 - PubMed
  43. Nat Rev Urol. 2017 Mar;14(3):139-152 - PubMed
  44. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 09;2:CD003543 - PubMed
  45. BMJ. 2017 Jul 26;358:j3418 - PubMed
  46. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):18-20 - PubMed
  47. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Jun 1;73(6):1464-1478 - PubMed
  48. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Jun 1;73(suppl_6):vi17-vi29 - PubMed

Publication Types