↓ Skip to main content

Government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0640-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Marc Mendelson, Monica Taljaard, Steven J. Hoffman

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a recognized threat to global public health. Increasing AMR and a dry pipeline of novel antimicrobial drugs have put AMR in the international spotlight. One strategy to combat AMR is to reduce antimicrobial drug consumption. Governments around the world have been experimenting with different policy interventions, such as regulating where antimicrobials can be sold, restricting the use of last-resort antimicrobials, funding AMR stewardship programs, and launching public awareness campaigns. To inform future action, governments should have access to synthesized data on the effectiveness of large-scale AMR interventions. This planned systematic review will (1) identify and describe previously evaluated government policy interventions to reduce human antimicrobial use and (2) estimate the effectiveness of these different strategies. An electronic search strategy has been developed in consultation with two research librarians. Seven databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PAIS Index, Web of Science, and PubMed excluding MEDLINE) will be searched, and additional studies will be identified using several gray literature search strategies. To be included, a study must (1) clearly describe the government policy and (2) use a rigorous design to quantitatively measure the impact of the policy on human antibiotic use. The intervention of interest is any policy intervention enacted by a government or government agency in any country to change human antimicrobial use. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility using criteria defined a priori. Data will be extracted with Covidence software using a customized extraction form. If sufficient data exists, a meta-analysis by intervention type will be conducted as part of the effectiveness review. However, if there are too few studies or if the interventions are too heterogeneous, data will be tabulated and a narrative synthesis strategy will be used. This evidence synthesis is intended for use by policymakers, public health practitioners, and researchers to inform future government policies aiming to address antimicrobial resistance. This review will also identify gaps in the evidence about the effectiveness of different policy interventions to inform future research priorities. PROSPERO CRD42017067514 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 41 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 38 26%
Unknown 51 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,634,427
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#255
of 2,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,608
of 450,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.