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 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
19.2%
2
JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.2%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.7%
5
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
6
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.4%
7
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
9
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
10
Antibiotics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
11
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
68 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
13
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
14
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
129 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
16
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
17
Journal of Infection
78 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
18
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
466 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.6%
20
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
21
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%
22
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
23
Health Science Reports
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
24
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
25
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
14 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
26
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
27
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
73 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%