Back

Development of AWaRe antibiotic quality indicators for optimal use

Heath, A.; Goelen, J.; CHUKI, P.; Cook, A.; Djukic, F.; Do, N. T. T.; Funiciello, E.; Gandra, S.; Godman, B.; Huttner, B.; Khalaf, Y. M.; Lorenzetti, G.; Mendelson, M.; Moore, C. E.; Osorio-de-Castro, C. G. S.; Saleem, Z.; schouten, j.; Tayler, E.; Wesangula, E.; Campbell, S. M.; Sharland, M.

2025-10-25 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.10.24.25338539 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) (AWaRe (Access/Watch/Reserve) book gives detailed guidance on the optimal use of antibiotics across primary care and hospitals for adults and children with the aim of improving the quality of use. ObjectivesTo develop universally applicable, model sets of appropriate and feasible quality indicators based on the WHO AWaRe system for primary care, hospital, and general indicators for optimal antibiotic use. MethodsIndicators from a scoping review were revised to focus on clinical infections in the AWaRe book. They were assessed using consensus techniques through two rounds each of the Global Delphi Technique and RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, evaluating appropriateness and feasibility at national and global levels respectively. In Round 1 of each method, panellists rated clarity and suggested revisions or new indicator. Round 2 results are reported. FindingsThere were 102 quality indicators (Primary Care: 46; Hospital: 39; General: 17) included in Round 2 of the Delphi Technique and 136 indicators (Primary Care: 56; Hospital: 60; General: 20) in Round 2 of the RAND/UCLA method, which are presented as model sets of indicators. From these broad sets, 12 indicators from the Delphi Technique and 31 indicators from the RAND/UCLA method were rated both appropriate and feasible with agreement respectively. ConclusionThese model AWaRe-based, universally applicable quality indicators can be locally adapted to improve the optimal use of antibiotics and inform global and country specific antimicrobial stewardship programs (AMS).

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.3%
3
Antibiotics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.1%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.1%
5
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.9%
7
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
8
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
9
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
10
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.5%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
12
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
15
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
17
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
20
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%