Investigating the cultural and contextual determinants of antimicrobial stewardship programmes across low-, middle- and high-income countries-A qualitative study.
Adult
Antimicrobial Stewardship
/ economics
Burkina Faso
Developed Countries
Developing Countries
England
Female
France
Health Personnel
Hospitals
Humans
Income
India
Interviews as Topic
/ methods
Leadership
Male
Middle Aged
Norway
Nurses
Pharmacists
Physicians
Qualitative Research
Socioeconomic Factors
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
14
07
2018
accepted:
12
12
2018
entrez:
17
1
2019
pubmed:
17
1
2019
medline:
26
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most of the evidence on antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP) to help sustain the effectiveness of antimicrobials is generated in high income countries. We report a study investigating implementation of ASP in secondary care across low-, middle- and high-income countries. The objective of this study was to map the key contextual, including cultural, drivers of the development and implementation of ASP across different resource settings. Healthcare professionals responsible for implementing ASP in hospitals in England, France, Norway, India, and Burkina Faso were invited to participate in face-to face interviews. Field notes from observations, documentary evidence, and interview transcripts were analysed using grounded theory approach. The key emerging categories were analysed iteratively using constant comparison, initial coding, going back the field for further data collection, and focused coding. Theoretical sampling was applied until the categories were saturated. Cross-validation and triangulation of the findings were achieved through the multiple data sources. 54 participants from 24 hospitals (England 9 participants/4 hospitals; Norway 13 participants/4 hospitals; France 9 participants/7 hospitals; India 13 participants/ 7 hospitals; Burkina Faso 8 participants/2 hospitals) were interviewed. Across Norway, France and England there was consistency in ASP structures. In India and Burkina Faso there were country level heterogeneity in ASP. State support for ASP was perceived as essential in countries where it is lacking (India, Burkina Faso), and where it was present, it was perceived as a barrier (England, France). Professional boundaries are one of the key cultural determinants dictating involvement in initiatives with doctors recognised as leaders in ASP. Nurse and pharmacist involvement was limited to England. The surgical specialty was identified as most difficult to engage with in each country. Despite challenges, one hospital in India provided the best example of interdisciplinary ASP, championed through organisational leadership. ASP initiatives in this study were restricted by professional boundaries and hierarchies, with lack of engagement with the wider healthcare workforce. There needs to be promotion of interdisciplinary team work including pharmacists and nurses, depending on the available healthcare workforce in different countries, in ASP. The surgical pathway remains a hard to reach, but critical target for ASP globally. There is a need to develop contextually driven ASP targeting the surgical pathway in different resource settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most of the evidence on antimicrobial stewardship programmes (ASP) to help sustain the effectiveness of antimicrobials is generated in high income countries. We report a study investigating implementation of ASP in secondary care across low-, middle- and high-income countries. The objective of this study was to map the key contextual, including cultural, drivers of the development and implementation of ASP across different resource settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Healthcare professionals responsible for implementing ASP in hospitals in England, France, Norway, India, and Burkina Faso were invited to participate in face-to face interviews. Field notes from observations, documentary evidence, and interview transcripts were analysed using grounded theory approach. The key emerging categories were analysed iteratively using constant comparison, initial coding, going back the field for further data collection, and focused coding. Theoretical sampling was applied until the categories were saturated. Cross-validation and triangulation of the findings were achieved through the multiple data sources.
RESULTS
54 participants from 24 hospitals (England 9 participants/4 hospitals; Norway 13 participants/4 hospitals; France 9 participants/7 hospitals; India 13 participants/ 7 hospitals; Burkina Faso 8 participants/2 hospitals) were interviewed. Across Norway, France and England there was consistency in ASP structures. In India and Burkina Faso there were country level heterogeneity in ASP. State support for ASP was perceived as essential in countries where it is lacking (India, Burkina Faso), and where it was present, it was perceived as a barrier (England, France). Professional boundaries are one of the key cultural determinants dictating involvement in initiatives with doctors recognised as leaders in ASP. Nurse and pharmacist involvement was limited to England. The surgical specialty was identified as most difficult to engage with in each country. Despite challenges, one hospital in India provided the best example of interdisciplinary ASP, championed through organisational leadership.
CONCLUSIONS
ASP initiatives in this study were restricted by professional boundaries and hierarchies, with lack of engagement with the wider healthcare workforce. There needs to be promotion of interdisciplinary team work including pharmacists and nurses, depending on the available healthcare workforce in different countries, in ASP. The surgical pathway remains a hard to reach, but critical target for ASP globally. There is a need to develop contextually driven ASP targeting the surgical pathway in different resource settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30650099
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209847
pii: PONE-D-18-20890
pmc: PMC6335060
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0209847Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : HPRU-2012-10047
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Oct 15;59 Suppl 3:S97-100
pubmed: 25261548
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 20;8:70
pubmed: 23786847
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 Dec;13(12):1057-98
pubmed: 24252483
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Apr 10;115(15):E3463-E3470
pubmed: 29581252
Trop Doct. 2008 Oct;38(4):233-5
pubmed: 18820195
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jan;25(1):20-25
pubmed: 29625170
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Aug 11;9:59
pubmed: 19671152
Burns. 2004 Nov;30(7):665-9
pubmed: 15475139
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Nov;22(11):885-7
pubmed: 24046440
BMC Med. 2018 Jun 20;16(1):95
pubmed: 29921272
Indian J Med Res. 2015 Aug;142(2):130-8
pubmed: 26354210
Indian J Community Med. 2008 Apr;33(2):89-92
pubmed: 19967031
Trends Microbiol. 2015 Sep;23(9):524-6
pubmed: 26338444
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Jun;51(6):829-835
pubmed: 29339297
Am J Infect Control. 2012 Nov;40(9):840-4
pubmed: 22341530
BMC Med. 2016 Dec 12;14(1):208
pubmed: 27938372
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD003543
pubmed: 16235326
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Nov;50(5):629-639
pubmed: 28705671
Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Jul;60:29-34
pubmed: 28483725
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001429
pubmed: 23667342
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Oct;23(10):752-760
pubmed: 28341492
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017 Sep 1;72(9):2666-2672
pubmed: 28633405
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 May 1;89(5):390-2
pubmed: 21556308
BMC Med. 2018 Jun 4;16(1):78
pubmed: 29860943
BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114-6
pubmed: 10625273
Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Jul;57(2):188-96
pubmed: 23572483
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2013 Mar 02;2(1):7
pubmed: 23452398
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 18;69(1):12-20
pubmed: 30445453
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72
pubmed: 17286625
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 09;2:CD003543
pubmed: 28178770
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Jun 04;4:24
pubmed: 26075065
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015 Mar;45(3):203-12
pubmed: 25630430
J Hosp Infect. 2007 Oct;67(2):168-74
pubmed: 17905477
BMJ. 2004 Oct 30;329(7473):1013
pubmed: 15514347
J Hosp Infect. 2010 Oct;76(2):184-5
pubmed: 20708301
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018 Oct 1;73(10):2613-2624
pubmed: 30020464