Antibiotic dispensing practices among informal healthcare providers in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The rise of antimicrobial resistance represents a critical threat to global health, exacerbated by the excessive and inappropriate dispensing and use of antimicrobial drugs, notably antibiotics, which specifically target bacterial infections. The surge in antibiotic consumption globally is particularly concerning in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where informal healthcare providers (IPs) play a vital role in the healthcare landscape. Often the initial point of contact for healthcare-seeking individuals, IPs play a crucial role in delivering primary care services in these regions. Despite the prevalent dispensing of antibiotics by IPs in many LMICs, as highlighted by existing research, there remains a gap in the comprehensive synthesis of antibiotic dispensing practices and the influencing factors among IPs. Hence, this scoping review seeks to map and consolidate the literature regarding antibiotic dispensing and its drivers among IPs in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guideline for scoping review. A comprehensive search across nine electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, AJOL and IMSEAR) will be performed, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of eligible publications. The search strategy will impose no constraints on study design, methodology, publication date or language. The study selection process will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. The findings on antibiotic dispensing and its patterns will be synthesised and reported descriptively using tables, visuals and a narrative summary. Additionally, factors influencing antibiotic dispensing will be elucidated through both inductive and deductive content analysis methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for scoping reviews. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at relevant conferences.
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 | 0.089 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.012 |
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".