MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224217333 · doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100388

Interventions to optimize the use of antibiotics in China: A scoping review of evidence from humans, animals, and the environment from a One Health perspective

2022· review· en· W4224217333 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineChinaIncentivePublic healthScopusMEDLINEHealth careEnvironmental healthNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The overuse and misuse of antibiotics has accelerated the rapid emergence of antibiotic resistance. The aim of the study was to review interventions conducted in China to optimize use of antibiotics in humans, animals, and the environment from a One Health perspective. Methods: The literature review for this study was limited to English and Chinese articles published from January 1985 to May 2021. Literature review searches were conducted using Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and three biomedical databases from China (the Chinese Scientific Journals database, the Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure). We used Arksey and O'Malley's step-wise methodological framework as the basis for our scoping review. Results: A total of 53 studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 51 (96%) were from human healthcare settings, one from environment health that pertained to rural ponds, and no studies were found that met our criteria on interventions used to improve antibiotic use in animals. For human health, the majority of the research was related to antibiotic intervention programs performed in public institutions, and only one policy assessment study included private institutions. Interventions were classified into four broad categories: 1) Knowledge interventions; 2) decision support; 3) financial incentives; and 4) organizational/management systems. Our findings indicated that combinations of multiple interventions were more effective in promoting the rational use of antibiotics in China. Conclusions: China has made major efforts on improving rational use of antibiotics in the past decades. Most policies or interventions, however, focused mainly on the human health aspect, less effort targeted toward the environment and animal health sectors. For further optimizing use of antibiotics, the cross-disciplinary and coordinated multi-faceted interventions guided by the One Health perspective should be developed and implemented. Meanwhile, the cross-departmental collaborative mechanism leading by the Chinese central government should be further strengthened to play a greater and more active role in fighting against antibiotic resistance wholly.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.421
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.039 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it