Leveraging local public health to advance antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) implementation and mitigate antimicrobial resistance (AMR): a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To explore the role of local public health organisations in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance. Methods A scoping review was conducted. Peer-reviewed and grey literature from countries within the organisation for economic co-operation and development was searched between 1999 and 2023 using the concepts of local public health, AMR and AMS. Thematic analysis was performed to identify themes. Results There were 63 citations illustrating 122 examples of AMS and AMR surveillance activities with local public health involvement. Common AMS activities (n = 105) included healthcare worker education (n = 22), antimicrobial use (AMU) evaluation (n = 21), patient/public education (n = 17), clinical practice guidelines (n = 10), and antibiograms (n = 10). Seventeen citations described local public health activities in AMR surveillance; the majority focussed on communicable diseases (n = 11) and/or AMR organisms (n = 6). Conclusions Local public health capabilities should be leveraged to advance high-impact activities to mitigate AMR, particularly in the areas of knowledge translation/mobilisation, optimising surveillance and establishing strategic collaborations. Policy implications Future work should focus on better understanding barriers and facilitators, including funding, to local public health participation in these 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".