ArticleWellcome open research2025
Understanding what citizens think about Antimicrobial Resistance: Deliberative Polling® in six middle-income countries.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The pandemic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) will only be mitigated by policy action and innovation and importantly, supported by local and community action. With the United Nations General Assembly high level meeting on AMR taking place in September 2024, we decided to ascertain citizens' understanding of the issues and prioritisation for action. Methods: From June to August 2024, while intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document were taking place, we used Deliberative Polling Results: In total 2419 participants were randomised to deliberation intervention (written and video information, facilitated online small group discussions, and expert plenary sessions) or control groups who only completed the pre- and post-deliberation surveys. Support increased significantly through deliberation for 3/4 of the proposals (>90% for 2/3), as well as on knowledge about AMR and internal political efficacy. Proposals relating to infection prevention were most heavily supported across all six countries. We found regional variation in support for proposals relating to informal antibiotic access and the use of antibiotics in food production, with less support for selected proposals from South America. Conclusions: Deliberative polling is a powerful method of large scale community engagement and this is new for AMR helping us to understand the views of the public relating to policies that will require their support to enact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.