Canadian physicians' knowledge and counseling practices related to antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance: Two-cycle national survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish a baseline for physicians' knowledge of and counseling practices on the use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and to determine potential changes in these measures after the implementation of a national AMR awareness campaign. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1600 physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' knowledge of and counseling practices on antibiotic use and AMR at baseline and after implementation of the AMR awareness campaign. RESULTS: = .01]). Most respondents in both surveys reported feeling confident with respect to counseling their patients on the appropriate use of antibiotics and AMR. CONCLUSION: Physicians' knowledge of and levels of counseling on the use of antibiotics and AMR were high and fairly stable in both survey results. This shows that Canadian physicians are demonstrating behaviour patterns of AMR stewardship. Existing gaps in counseling practices might be a result of physicians believing that pharmacists or nurses are addressing these issues with patients. Future national surveys conducted among pharmacists and nurses would contribute to the evidence base for AMR stewardship activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".