ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Comparison between model global AWaRe-based quality indicators and quality indicators developed to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in primary healthcare in South Africa.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Bacterial antimicrobial resistance represents a significant global public health challenge. Researchers from City St Georges, University of London, UK, developed global model sets of quality indicators, based on WHO AWaRe guidance, to improve future primary healthcare (PHC) prescribing. These were subsequently adapted to the PHC context in South Africa as an exemplar for developing countries. The study aimed to compare nationally adapted indicators in South Africa with global model indicators to improve future prescribing. Methods: Comparative analysis of the two sets of quality indicators, developed using the same Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method (RAM). For the 62 overlapping indicators rated in the second round of the RAM for both sets, the median appropriateness and feasibility ratings, and the level of consensus, were compared. The contextual appropriateness, feasibility, and adaptation of the indicators across public PHC facilities in South Africa were assessed to identify factors that could affect implementation. Results: Of the 62 overlapping indicators, only six (9.7%) were rephrased for the South African RAM to reflect local guidance. Fifty nine (95.2%) indicators were rated appropriate for the global RAM while all indicators (100%) were rated appropriate for South Africa. For the global RAM, 23 (37.1%) indicators were rated feasible while 60 (96.8%) indicators were rated feasible for South Africa. Seven (11.3%) indicators were rated both appropriate with agreement and feasible with agreement for the global RAM. Forty six (74.2%) indicators were rated both appropriate with agreement and feasible with agreement by the South African panelists, including seven indicators rated both appropriate and feasible by the global panel. The South African indicators adapted from the global set covered seven categories: respiratory tract infections, lower urinary tract infections, skin and soft tissue infections, diarrhea and enteric fever, bacterial eye infections, and dental infections, as well as general indicators. Conclusions: The South African indicators for public PHCs facilities, adapted from the model global set, show that local adaptation is imperative to reflect differences in national treatment guidelines between countries, prescribing cultures, epidemiology and infectious disease burden. Ongoing barriers include a reliance on paper-based records and poor-quality routine healthcare data.
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.