Affiliations 

  • 1 Global Studies Institute, University of Geneva, Sciences II, Quai Ernest-Ansermet 30, Case postale, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. [email protected]
  • 2 School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada
  • 3 Global Economic Dynamics and the Biosphere, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Box 50005, 104 05, Stockholm, Sweden
  • 4 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden
  • 5 Infection Control Program and WHO Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland
  • 6 Centre for Food-Borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Canada
  • 7 Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
  • 8 Global Studies Institute, University of Geneva, Sciences II, Quai Ernest-Ansermet 30, Case postale, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
BMC Infect Dis, 2021 Aug 26;21(1):873.
PMID: 34445962 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06483-z

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the most pressing One Health issues. While interventions and policies with various targets and goals have been implemented, evidence about factors underpinning success and failure of interventions in different sectors is lacking. The objective of this study is to identify characteristics of AMR interventions that increase their capacity to impact AMR. This study focuses on AMR interventions targeting E. coli.

METHODS: We used the AMR-Intervene framework to extract descriptions of the social and ecological systems of interventions to determine factors contributing to their success.

RESULTS: We identified 52 scientific publications referring to 42 unique E. coli AMR interventions. We mainly identified interventions implemented in high-income countries (36/42), at the national level (16/42), targeting primarily one sector of society (37/42) that was mainly the human sector (25/42). Interventions were primarily funded by governments (38/42). Most intervention targeted a low leverage point in the AMR system, (36/42), and aimed to change the epidemiology of AMR (14/42). Among all included publications, 55% (29/52) described at least one success factor or obstacle (29/52) and 19% (10/52) identified at least one success factor and one obstacle. Most reported success factors related to communication between the actors and stakeholders and the role of media, and stressed the importance of collaboration between disciplines and external partners. Described obstacles covered data quality, access to data and statistical analyses, and the validity of the results.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we identified a lack of diversity regarding interventions. In addition, most published E. coli interventions were poorly described with limited evidence of the factors that contributed to the intervention success or failure. Design and reporting guidelines would help to improve reporting quality and provide a valuable tool for improving the science of AMR interventions.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.