Behavioural antimicrobial stewardship interventions in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of physician-targeted approaches

2026

Полный текст Открытый доступ: Hybrid Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1016/j.cmi.2026.09.014
Достоверность данных 70 средняя
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions are increasingly implemented in outpatient settings to improve the rational use of antibiotics and mitigate antimicrobial resistance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of physician-targeted behavioural AMS interventions on outpatient antibiotic use. METHODS: Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, APA PsycNET, and Epistemonikos (PROSPERO CRD420251110732). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating AMS interventions. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians. INTERVENTIONS: AMS interventions with at least one behavioural component. Assessments of risk of bias: The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool were used. Methods of data synthesis: We categorized AMS interventions along two dimensions into seven broad types and by number of components (single, combined, and multicomponent). Adjusted and crude estimates were calculated in random-effects meta-analyses to assess overall, recommended/first-line, and nonrecommended/inappropriate antibiotic use, stratified by study design. Univariable random-effects meta-regression was conducted to explore whether intervention effects varied by AMS components. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test, funnel plots, and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-five studies were included, 43 (50.6%) RCTs and 42 (49.4%) non-RCTs. Among RCTs, behavioural AMS interventions reduced overall antibiotic use (0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) and nonrecommended/inappropriate use (0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.75) and increased recommended/first-line use (1.35; 95% CI, 1.16-1.58). Corresponding estimates for non-RCTs were as follows: 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01), 0.54 (95% CI, 0.47-0.62), and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.34-1.71). In meta-regression, each additional intervention component was consistently associated with a greater reduction in nonrecommended/inappropriate use (RCTs 13%; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) and overall use (non-RCTs 7%; 95% CI, 0.86-0.99). Incentives and accountability, communication, and patient engagement also showed statistically significant reductions in overall and inappropriate use among RCTs but were based on fewer studies. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient physician-targeted behavioural AMS interventions reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and increase recommended/first-line use, with more modest effects on overall volume; intervention effectiveness increased with the number of components.