Studying Factors Affecting Success of Antimicrobial Resistance Interventions through the Lens of Experience: A Thematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) affects the environment, and animal and human health. Institutions worldwide have applied various measures, some of which have reduced antimicrobial use and AMR. However, little is known about factors influencing the success of AMR interventions. To address this gap, we engaged health professionals, designers, and implementers of AMR interventions in an exploratory study to learn about their experience and factors that challenged or facilitated interventions and the context in which interventions were implemented. Based on participant input, our thematic analysis identified behaviour; institutional governance and management; and sharing and enhancing information as key factors influencing success. Important sub-themes included: correct behaviour reinforcement, financial resources, training, assessment, and awareness of AMR. Overall, interventions were located in high-income countries, the human sector, and were publicly funded and implemented. In these contexts, behaviour patterns strongly influenced success, yet are often underrated or overlooked when designing AMR interventions. Improving our understanding of what contributes to successful interventions would allow for better designs of policies that are tailored to specific contexts. Exploratory approaches can provide encouraging results in complex challenges, as made evident in our study. Remaining challenges include more engagement in this type of study by professionals and characterisation of themes that influence intervention outcomes by context.
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 | 0.037 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".