Engaging patients in antimicrobial resistance and stewardship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the perspectives of patient advisors (PAs) on the current state of antimicrobial resistance (AR) and stewardship in Canada and identifies next steps, with the goal of stimulating further collaboration for action between leaders and PAs as well as research. Design/methodology/approach – The perspectives of PAs were gathered using an electronic online survey of 72 respondents. A search of peer reviewed literature and publicly available reports informed the development of the survey and the articulation of a more comprehensive viewpoint in this paper. Findings – PAs view AR as a serious and growing public health threat. They believe sharing the responsibility for infection prevention and control and antimicrobial stewardship will help to control the problem. They see healthcare professionals as the most appropriate stakeholders to influence behaviors associated with appropriate antibiotic use, however, they also see value in public campaigns. Importantly, they identify several opportunities for PA contribution: education of care providers, patients, families, and the public; co-design and development of materials, policies, improvement initiatives, and research; and participation in and promotion of public campaigns. Practical implications – Engaging PAs as partners at all system levels is becoming common practice. PAs bring a unique and complementary perspective that could contribute to antimicrobial stewardship efforts. Originality/value – This paper begins to bridge a gap between literature and practice, and proposes that PAs can contribute to antimicrobial stewardship efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".