We reviewed the published literature on antimicrobial
stewardship training in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to
determine which interventions have been implemented, the extent to which they
have been evaluated, and to understand which are most effective.
Methods
We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to
December 2016. Four thousand three hundred eighty-five (4385) articles were
identified and underwent title and abstract review. Only those articles that
addressed antimicrobial stewardship interventions for medical trainees were
included in the final review. We employed Kirkpatrick’s four levels of
evaluation (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) to categorize intervention
evaluations.
Results
Our review included 48 articles. The types of intervention
varied widely amongst studies worldwide. Didactic teaching was used heavily in
all settings, while student-specific feedback was used primarily in the postgraduate
setting. The high-level evaluation was sparse, with 22.9% reporting a
Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation; seventeen reported no evaluation. All but one
article reported positive results from the intervention. No articles evaluated
the impact of an intervention on undergraduate trainees’ prescribing behaviour
after graduation.
Conclusions
This study enhances our understanding of the extent of
antimicrobial stewardship in the context of medical education. While our study
demonstrates that medical schools are implementing antimicrobial stewardship
interventions, rigorous evaluation of programs to determine whether such
efforts are effective is lacking. We encourage more robust evaluation to
establish effective, evidence-based approaches to training prescribers in light
of the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.
Antimicrobial stewardshipantimicrobial resistanceantibiotic prescribingundergraduate medical educationpostgraduate medical educationIntroduction
Antimicrobial resistance results from a host of factors, including improper antimicrobial prescription, and is an emergent problem. The next generation of physicians must be prepared to face this dilemma as antimicrobial stewardship becomes increasingly vital in the treatment of patients in all fields.
Traditionally, antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) have been initiated to address the issue of antimicrobial resistance. Education, as a mainstay feature of these programs, is considered essential to teaching the knowledge necessary for effective stewardship, and can influence physicians’ prescribing behaviour.1-3 Several educational interventions have been shown to improve antimicrobial prescribing practices and infection control.4-7 The majority of antimicrobial stewardship education has involved practicing physicians, specifically targeting prescribing habits with the goal of modifying their approach to antimicrobial prescription.1,8 Yet changing the behaviour of practicing physicians has proven difficult.6
Few studies have sought to understand the type or efficacy of teaching practices of stewardship principles at the undergraduate and postgraduate medical education levels, particularly at the undergraduate level.9 As a result, the literature surrounding how early antimicrobial stewardship training starts in a physician’s career, and whether teaching these principles from the outset is an effective strategy for combating antimicrobial resistance and lowering overall resistance rates remains unclear. To date, there have been few comprehensive evaluations of antimicrobial stewardship teaching programs and overall effectiveness of these training procedures in undergraduate medical institutions, and those that have been done are geographically restricted.14 Accordingly, the extent to which this teaching translates into clinical practice is unclear. While recent studies identify the presence of stewardship curricula, the effectiveness of these interventions remains sparsely evaluated.14-15 In light of clinical evidence, it is critical to understand the role that formal learning has to play in teaching prescription habits in order to change such behaviours. Furthermore, an understanding of the effectiveness of such teaching strategies is needed in order to understand its impact, if any, on clinical practice.
Despite the focus of ASP on physician education, antimicrobial prescribing is frequently designated to junior doctors and residents who may not have developed sufficient expertise on antimicrobials.10,16 Furthermore, medical students have expressed interest in learning more about antimicrobials and their appropriate usage.11-14,17,18 Many students recognize the growing problem of antibiotic overuse, and most would like more training in this area.13-14,17-19 Students with formal training on antimicrobial stewardship, for example through didactic lectures with infectious disease specialists, feel better prepared for the practice and more comfortable with their knowledge.11 However, studies suggest students predominantly have significant gaps in their knowledge regarding appropriate use of antimicrobials.13,16-18,20-24 A number of studies have documented efforts of ASP for both undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees.9,25-28 Yet no consensus has been reached as to how to ensure students are invested in antimicrobial stewardship and how to ensure retention of this knowledge and clinical implementation. Teaching appropriate use of antimicrobials varies greatly between countries and programs.9,14,29 A greater understanding of how these needs for ASP education are being addressed is an important next step towards addressing rising global awareness of the need for such principles in practice.
Despite student demand for learning on the topic of antimicrobial stewardship, and a focus on antimicrobial stewardship teaching at the physician level, it remains largely unknown at to the level of education at which medical trainees are first exposed to these concepts, how such principles are taught, and to what extent such teaching translates into clinical practice. We examined the published literature from 1946-2016 on antimicrobial stewardship for undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees, including interventional design, how interventions were evaluated, and the effectiveness of the teaching strategies.
We conducted a mapping review with the purpose of organizing what is known surrounding effective teaching on antimicrobial stewardship.30 The review focused on the degree to which such interventions were evaluated to be able to make suggestions for further intervention adoption in medical education and to identify future areas of research. Given the heterogeneity of existing ASP research with respect to intervention type and evaluation, such mapping was valuable for examining the flexible implementation of interventions at the curricular level.30 Our goal was to better understand the spectrum of teaching strategies employed in educating students on antimicrobial stewardship principles and practices, and to understand how such practices have been evaluated. By exploring this aim, stewardship programs and medical schools can use our findings to implement teaching methods that effectively educate medical students and result in lasting change in the clinical setting, thus helping inform future best practice and curriculum design. Furthermore, by exploring this aim, it is possible to discern trends in education practices, and identify gaps remaining in our understanding of how to educate trainees on antimicrobial stewardship in a way that results in lasting prescribing habits.
Methods
We conducted a literature review to compile a summary of the current published research on antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education. Ethical approval for this study was not deemed necessary, as our study constitutes a mapping review and did not involve primary data such as patient data collection or analysis.30 A systemic map contextualizes a detailed systematic literature review and focuses on key characteristics of the literature, including study population and setting, and is therefore ideal for understanding the nature of ASP educational interventions in terms of trainee group and key intervention characteristics.30,31
Search strategy
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1947 to 2016), to identify research, review, and opinion articles addressing antimicrobial stewardship education for undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees. Search strategies were developed by two authors (APA, EL). The authors translated the search strategies using each database platform’s command language and the appropriate search fields. MeSH terms, EMTREE terms, and textwords were used for the search concepts of antibiotics, prescribing patterns, and medical education. The three concepts were combined with a Boolean “AND.” No search limits were applied. Articles in English captured in EMBASE and MEDLINE were included in the final searches, which were completed in December 2016. We endeavoured to identify potential studies that were not captured from the database searches, by combing the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews included in the full-text review. Grey literature was not included in the search.
Article selection
Our database searches identified 4385 articles with potential relevance to our study. Three authors (SS, VZ, DC) identified the relevant articles for full-text review by examining the titles and abstracts of the articles identified in the database searches. We included articles written in English that discussed the use of antimicrobial stewardship in medical education. Articles that mentioned solely physician education, continuing education, or public education were excluded. Articles related to non-medical health professions education were also excluded as we focused on medical professionals in this review. Articles that discussed resource management, rational prescribing, or antimicrobials but did not discuss stewardship principles (for example, antimicrobial teaching focused on drug indications and dosing) were also excluded. Lastly, articles that identified only the problem (without discussion of any solution) or articles that did not discuss a specific intervention were excluded. Any disagreements between reviewers were brought to another author (FF), who resolved the dispute. After title and abstract screening, 227 articles were selected for full-text review. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 42 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria (see Figure 1). Searching the reference lists of the 42 included articles identified six additional studies for inclusion, for a total of 48 articles. For a complete list of all included articles, see Appendix A.
Each article included for full-text review was independently reviewed by two authors (two of SS, DC, VZ). The authors abstracted the following data fields from the included articles: authors, title, journal, year of publication, location, intervention, purpose of intervention, study design, participants, outcomes, key findings, and the level of evaluation from Kirkpatrick’s evaluation of education model:32 (1) reaction (satisfaction or happiness; what participants thought of the educational intervention), (2) learning (change in attitude and/or knowledge or skills gained assessed by test or demonstration), (3) behaviour (transfer of attitude, knowledge and/or skills to workplace or clinical setting, for example, determined through observation), and (4) results (patient care affected or societal impact due to participation in the educational intervention evaluated by looking at patient outcomes, for example).
Results
Four types of articles were included in this mapping review: (1) commentaries/perspectives encompassing editorials and letters, some of which briefly discussed evaluations that had been done; (2) program descriptions without evaluation or outcomes measured; (3) review articles; and (4) research or evaluation articles with clear study design descriptions and outcomes. Across our dataset, there were nine perspective pieces,25,33-34,39,41,44,47,60,68 three program descriptions,28,43,70 five review articles,42,45-46,52,71 and 31 research articles.9,15-18,24,29,35-38,40,48-51,53-59,61-67,69
Target learner group
Of the 48 articles included in this summary, 14 included only undergraduate medical trainees,9,17,18,24,25,26,33-40 11 included both undergraduate and postgraduate trainees,29,41-50 20 included only postgraduate trainees,15,16,51-68 and three did not specify the training level of the participants (see Table 1).69-71 The location of the studies also varied; the majority of studies were situated in Europe (20 studies; 41.7%), and 16 (33.3%) studies were based in the United Kingdom. Further, eleven articles (22.9%) took place in North America, three (6.3%) in Australia, eight (16.7%) in different Asian countries and two individual studies were conducted in South America and South Africa respectively. Four review articles included articles with geographical diversity.
Intervention design
The types of interventions varied widely amongst studies and schools. Approaches at the undergraduate level (as demonstrated in detail in Appendix A.) included didactic teaching,9,25,29,36,40,44,50 web-based teaching,39 clinical case discussions,35 workshops/seminars,26,34,69 board games,37-38 guideline promotion,35,49-59 audits on current stewardship integration in the medical curriculum,17-18,24 and intensive modules,47 often in combination. Didactic teaching was moderately emphasized on the whole. Studies that examined educational interventions comparatively between medical institutions noted a widespread array of teaching strategies employed. These studies noted an overall inconsistency of trainees’ exposure to stewardship topics and of the intervention’s emphasis.17-18
Interventions aimed at the postgraduate level were similarly varied, and can be explored in Appendix A. These studies focused on providing feedback to students in relation to current prescribing practices rather than teaching new skills. Many methods provided resources for residents to consult and use to make prescribing choices and influence behaviours, or focused on identifying gaps in trainees’ knowledge and practice with the goal of rectifying their practice in the future. These approaches included: web-based tutorials,47,67 workshops,57,62,65-66 lectures and information sessions,49,52,58,61-62 using a restricted list of antibiotics to promote compliance with guidelines,55,58 audits followed by feedback,15-16,52,56,60,64,67-68 chart reviews and feedback,51,58-59,66 augmented reality,53 viral surveillance program,61 using special prescribing pads,54 integration of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook,67 consulting specialists to improve compliance with guidelines,48,52,57,63,66-67 and consulting guidelines or written information.44,50,52,56-57,62,71 Many interventions included a combination of these tactics. Interestingly, we found that auditing techniques evaluating prescribing tendencies was implemented at the postgraduate level, but not in undergraduate medical education settings.
Articles that reported evaluations from each level of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation of education model, by intervention target group
Level of trainees
No evaluation
Kirkpatrick Level 1 (Reaction)
Kirkpatrick Level 2 (Learning)
Kirkpatrick Level 3 (Behaviour)
Kirkpatrick Level 4 (Results)
Undergraduate medical education
Davenport et al. 2005,35 Kerr et al. 2001,33 Luther, Ohl and Hicks 2013,25 Pulcini et al. 2015,9 Shankar et al. 2011,26 Wright and Jain 200434
Beylefeld and Struwig 2007,38 Chuenchom, et al. 2016, 17 Haque et al. 2016, 18 Hoque, Mostafa & Haque, 2016, 24 Marwick and Nathwani 2007,39 Minen et al. 2010,36 Valente et al. 200937
Huang et al. 2013,40 Marwick and Nathwani, 2007,39 Valente et al. 200937
Postgraduate medical education
Brennan and Mattick 2013,52 Philp, Wilford and Low 198651
Bannan et al. 2009,55 Gharbi et al. 2016, 16 Nifakos, Tomson and Zary 2014,53 Nand et al. 2016, 68 Temte et al. 1999,61 Welch et al. 200054
Faryna, Wegowske and Goldenberg 1987,56 Feucht et al. 2003,57 Ikai et al. 2012,58
Pisano et al. 2016, 67 Rawson et al. 201615
Légaré et al 2011,59 Irfan et al. 2015,65 Main and Koerner 2012,60 McLellan et al. 2016, 66 Temte et al. 1999,61 Welch et al. 2000,54 Zwar, Gordon and Sanson-Fisher 1995,62 Zwar et al. 1999,63 Lee et al. 201464
Mixed undergraduate and postgraduate medical education
Davey et al 1993,29 Ghafur 2013,41 Greenwood 1998,44 Lee et al. 2013,45 Lee et al. 2015,46 McNulty, Cookson and Lewis 2012,43 Pulcini and Gyssens 201342
Dawson, Bennett and Ongley, 2010,47 Zamin, Pitre and Conly, 199748
De Souza et al. 2006,50 Thamlikitkul et al. 199849
Thamlikitkul et al. 199849
Unspecified
Davey et al. 2007,71 Le Normand et al. 199469
Bain 198470
Types of Interventions and their Kirkpatrick Level of Evaluation*†
*Numbers reflect the number of different studies employing each intervention type
†Some studies used more than one type of intervention, or the same intervention in both undergraduate and postgraduate students, but specific interventions are listed separately
Outcomes (variables of interest)
Studies measured a wide variety of outcomes (see Appendix A for full list of variables of interest). Although it was clear from the studies included in this review that medical students required supplementary antimicrobial education and desired their curricula to be augmented, all but one of the articles that measured outcomes (Kirkpatrick’s Levels 1-4) reported that the intervention made a difference. Notably, one exception we identified was an article by De Souza et al., which evaluated the current medical curricula from an ASP perspective, but did not involve a more specifically active intervention.50 Additionally, all studies that evaluated outcomes on a Kirkpatrick Level 1 scale supported sentiments echoed in the literature that, despite resources available in hospital or knowledge gained through the intervention, trainees do not feel comfortable with their knowledge. In studies evaluating behavioural change (Kirkpatrick Level 3-4), most outcomes included rates of prescriptions (total and/or inappropriate prescriptions), and fewer directly evaluated patient safety or cost parameters. In studies that evaluated knowledge (Kirkpatrick Level 2), there was variability between those evaluating students’ knowledge of stewardship principles and those evaluating the application of such principles to sample cases in a controlled setting.
Search Strategy Flow Chart
Evaluations
Over half (n=31, 64.6%) of the 48 studies included in this review reported that interventions were evaluated in some capacity. Eleven (22.9%) articles reported on a Kirkpatrick Level 3 or 4 (behaviour) evaluation of the intervention,49-50,54,59-66 eleven (22.9%) reported on a knowledge evaluation (Kirkpatrick Level 2),15,37,39-40,47-48,56-58,67,70 nine (18.8%) reported only an evaluation of participants’ reactions (Kirkpatrick Level 1),16-18,24,36,38,53,55,68 and 17 (35.4%) reported no evaluation of the intervention at all.9,25,26,29,33-35,41-46,51-52,69,71 Of those evaluating behaviour, no articles reported long-term behaviour changes after the intervention was completed, as only pre- and post-intervention evaluations were conducted. Of interventions that were evaluated, a mix between summative and mixed summative/formative evaluations was conducted. None of the articles that targeted undergraduate medical students evaluated whether the intervention influenced their prescribing behaviour either as a senior medical student or followed them beyond graduation (see Table 1). No undergraduate evaluations were followed up by further postgraduate evaluations, and no undergraduate articles examined the longitudinal effect of the measured intervention on future practice.
Additionally, more individualized teaching methods, such as audits, consults, and chart reviews were more frequently evaluated at a higher Kirkpatrick level, while workshops and didactic teaching, interventions that often occurred in larger groups rather than one-on-one, were generally not evaluated at a high level (see Table 2).
Discussion
In this review, we found a myriad of training approaches to antimicrobial stewardship in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. While our understanding of antimicrobial resistance has grown, our understanding of effective educational approaches on the topic has not. Approximately one quarter of educational interventions evaluated behaviour change (Kirkpatrick Level 3), and of these, only two articles that included undergraduate education evaluated interventions at this level. Further, studies frequently did not proceed to evaluate interventions at all. There continues to be a dearth of information available as to whether the effects measured by the studies that did evaluate their outcomes last beyond the immediate intervention time frame. The long-term effects of these educational interventions are unknown as the studies we identified largely do not include follow-up. It remains unclear whether these identified interventions are effective, more broadly, at influencing physician behaviour. In order to change the prescribing habits of future physicians and to lower antimicrobial resistance rates by teaching trainees best practices, more robust evaluations of innovative teaching strategies are needed. Many studies included in this review (n=17), did not evaluate the teaching strategies employed by respective investigators; instead, they simply reported on implementation. Evidence-based curriculum development is integral in the facilitation of best clinical practices. Medical educators and researchers must rigorously evaluate the efficacy of new educational interventions.72 Particularly in the undergraduate medical setting, it is invaluable to understand whether teaching about appropriate use of antimicrobials is retained by students as they go out to practice. We must understand whether interventions can be effectively applied at this level to influence prescribing behaviour on a long-term basis (i.e., Kirkpatrick Level 3), which will be instrumental in facilitating better patient care and societal impacts collectively (i.e., Kirkpatrick Level 4).
With antimicrobial resistance a growing global concern, there have been calls for further integration of teaching on this topic at the undergraduate medical level.42 Pulcini et al. identified physicians’ lack of knowledge of infectious diseases and antibiotics as a cause of their inappropriate prescribing,28 and both Pulcini et al. and Davey et al. recommended the translation of prescribing principles into learning topics and competencies for undergraduate core curricula.29,42 Our results support the findings of the Infectious Diseases Society of America that education on appropriate antimicrobial prescribing is highly variable across training facilities in the United States.73 In addition, similar inconsistencies in training seen on a global scale. Several recent studies conducted in the United Kingdom show that educational standards concerning antimicrobial stewardship vary greatly between postgraduate curricula, and provide further evidence that such inconsistent standards are a problem globally.73 To identify which of these educational interventions is most effective in bolstering medical student’s antimicrobial knowledge, our study shows that further evaluations of current approaches are needed. Once effective training programs are identified, such programs should then be expanded across undergraduate medical curricula. Recent changes to the Leader role in the CanMEDS 2015 physician competency framework, emphasizing quality improvement and patient safety,74 align with the appraisal of antimicrobial stewardship required at the undergraduate level. CanMEDS is a framework that outlines requisite competencies physicians need to successfully enact in order to meet the health care needs of the individuals and groups they serve. One of the competencies of the Leader role is that a physician must “engage in the stewardship of health care resources”.74 With this objective in mind, developing antimicrobial resistance education at the undergraduate level and evaluating such strategies to better educate future physicians fits well with the CanMEDS framework.
The educational interventions included in this review were highly varied, and different interventions were often used in different combinations. This practice of trying various strategies reflects the directive, led by Julio Frenk and Lincoln Chen, necessitating transformative and creative teaching initiatives.75 However, the included articles also span many decades and demonstrate little forward momentum towards improving and implementing ideas that have been shown to be promising in the past. While there is a great need for innovation and for the development of new ideas, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. More research must be executed to build on existing interventions and design effective learning programs. Collaboration between medical schools and the breakdown of institutional barriers (i.e. sharing best educational practices) can help accelerate this development process. Sharing resources and learning across institutions, as described by Frenk et al.,75 is integral to moving forward, but it also requires stringent evaluation metrics to assess collaborations and new educational interventions.
Finally, it remains unclear as to the extent that antimicrobial stewardship is actually incorporated into undergraduate medical curricula, particularly in different settings globally. Future research should target the extent and nature of these stewardship programs and must evaluate their overall effectiveness.
Due to the nature of our study, there are certain limitations to the interpretation of our results. Our review discusses the available English-language published literature, and does not capture studies that have been exclusively published in other languages. Thus, our findings might reflect the stewardship practices of the English-speaking world more heavily. However, considering the geographical diversity in the included studies, our findings are likely generalizable (on an international scale). In addition, we conducted our literature search through peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in two databases, excluding other databases. Other program descriptions and practices existing outside of peer-reviewed journal articles (e.g., grey literature or book chapters) were not included in this review; these bodies of literature are unlikely to include evaluations of antimicrobial stewardship interventions and were deemed outside of this study’s scope. However, the exclusion of grey literature from this review may limit our understanding of global trends due to the lack of published evaluation of such medical curricula. Finally, our review focused entirely on medical prescribers at the trainee level, and therefore the role of other health care professionals in antimicrobial stewardship practices was not included. These allied health professionals play a significant role in antimicrobial stewardship, particularly in jurisdictions where autonomous prescribing capabilities are authorized. However, comparing medical training with other health professional fields, and evaluating stewardship training in each profession’s curricula, are difficult to compare due to their vastly different structure and outside this study’s scope.
Conclusions
Although our understanding of the scope of antimicrobial resistance has progressed, our understanding of which educational approaches to antimicrobial stewardship are effective has not. As physicians strive towards evidence-informed education, we need an evidence base that captures the impact of such programs on trainees’ prescribing behaviour after graduation. Currently, there are no best practice or national guidelines for teaching antimicrobial stewardship in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. However, our study demonstrates that medical schools worldwide are supporting multitudinous antimicrobial stewardship interventions. It is possible that many intervention designs result in the desired outcome, simply by trainees’ attention to this area of interest. If so, there is an opportunity to optimize learning outcomes and intervention efficiency. Yet if such gains are short-lived and not habit forming, we must return to the drawing board to once again target prescribing habits in a new manner. Are we wasting resources and supporting ineffective interventions that are not cost-effective? Are we wasting time and trusting that these interventions will lead to a future culture of stewardship? Further rigorous evaluation of existing programs that capture Kirkpatrick Levels 3 and 4 are necessary to answer these questions, and thereby encourage additional medical education programs to incorporate such practices into their curricula. In order to foster a culture of stewardship amongst our trainees, we must develop and assess proficient educational interventions.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
Appendix A. Studies with antimicrobial stewardship medical education interventions
ReferencesDellitTHOwensRCMcGowanJEGerdingDNWeinsteinRABurkeJPHuskinsWCPatersonDLFishmanNOCarpenterCFBrennanPJBilleterMHootonTMInfectious diseases society of America and the society for healthcare epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship.Clin Infect Dis20074415917710.1086/51039317173212CostelloeCMetcalfeCLoveringAMantDHayADEffect of antibiotic prescribing in primary care on antimicrobial resistance in individual patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ2010340209610.1136/bmj.c209620483949De SantisGHarveyKJHowardDMashfordMLMouldsRFImproving the quality of antibiotic prescription patterns in general practice. The role of educational intervention.Med J Aust19941605025058170427CooperBSStoneSPKibblerCCCooksonBDRobertsJAMedleyGFDuckworthGJLaiREbrahimSSystematic review of isolation policies in the hospital management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review of the literature with epidemiological and economic modelling.Health Technol Assess20037119414636487CooperBSStoneSPKibblerCCCooksonBDRobertsJAMedleyGFDuckworthGLaiREbrahimSIsolation measures in the hospital management of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): systematic review of the literature.BMJ200432953310.1136/bmj.329.7465.53315345626DaveyPBrownECharaniEFenelonLGouldIMHolmesARamsayCRWiffenPJWilcoxMInterventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients.Cochrane Database Syst Rev201300354310.1002/14651858.CD003543.pub216235326DaveyPBrownEFenelonLFinchRGouldIHolmesARamsayCTaylorEWiffenPWilcoxMSystematic review of antimicrobial drug prescribing in hospitals.Emerging Infect Dis20061221121610.3201/eid1202.05014516494744RoumieCLHalasaNBEdwardsKMZhuYDittusRSGriffinMRDifferences in antibiotic prescribing among physicians, residents, and nonphysician clinicians.Am J Med200511864164810.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.01315922696PulciniCWenckerFFrimodt-MøllerNKernWVNathwaniDRodríguez-BañoJSimonsenGSVlahović-PalčevskiVGyssensICEuropean survey on principles of prudent antibiotic prescribing teaching in undergraduate students.Clin Microbiol Infect20152135436110.1016/j.cmi.2014.11.01525658523CharaniECookeJHolmesAAntibiotic stewardship programmes--what's missing?J Antimicrob Chemother2010652275227710.1093/jac/dkq35720851812AbboLMCosgroveSEPottingerPSPereyraMSinkowitz-CochranRSrinivasanAWebbDJHootonTMMedical students' perceptions and knowledge about antimicrobial stewardship: how are we educating our future prescribers?Clin Infect Dis20135763163810.1093/cid/cit37023728148PulciniCWilliamsFMolinariNDaveyPNathwaniDJunior doctors' knowledge and perceptions of antibiotic resistance and prescribing: a survey in France and Scotland.Clin Microbiol Infect201117808710.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03179.x20132254DyarOJHowardPNathwaniDPulciniCKnowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of French medical students about antibiotic prescribing and resistance.Med Mal Infect20134342343010.1016/j.medmal.2013.07.01024016770Castro-SánchezEDrumrightLNGharbiMFarrellSHolmesAHMapping Antimicrobial Stewardship in Undergraduate Medical, Dental, Pharmacy, Nursing and Veterinary Education in the United Kingdom.PLoS ONE201611015005610.1371/journal.pone.015005626928009RawsonTMButtersTPMooreLSCastro-SánchezECookeFJHolmesAHExploring the coverage of antimicrobial stewardship across UK clinical postgraduate training curricula.J Antimicrob Chemother2016713284329210.1093/jac/dkw28027432603GharbiMMooreLSCastro-SánchezESpanoudakiEGradyCHolmesAHDrumrightLNA needs assessment study for optimising prescribing practice in secondary care junior doctors: the Antibiotic Prescribing Education among Doctors (APED).BMC Infect Dis20161645610.1186/s12879-016-1800-z27576784ChuenchomNThamlikitkulVChaiwarithRDeoisaresRRattanaumpawanPPerception, attitude, and knowledge regarding antimicrobial resistance, appropriate antimicrobial use, and infection control among future medical practitioners: a multicentre study.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol20163760360510.1017/ice.2016.826809753HaqueMRahmanNIZulkifliZIsmailSAntibiotic prescribing and resistance: knowledge level of medical students of clinical years of University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia.Ther Clin Risk Manag20161241342610.2147/TCRM.S10201327042083IbiaESheridanMSchwartzRKnowledge of the principles of judicious antibiotic use for upper respiratory infections: a survey of senior medical students.South Med J20059888989510.1097/01.smj.0000177439.89762.ee16217981DyarOJPulciniCHowardPNathwaniDEuropean medical students: a first multicentre study of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance.J Antimicrob Chemother20146984284610.1093/jac/dkt44024191307HumphreysHDillaneTO'ConnellBLukeLCSurvey of recent medical graduates' knowledge and understanding of the treatment and prevention of infection.Ir Med J200699585916548226JamshedSQElkalmiRRajiahKAl-ShamiAKShamsudinSHSiddiquiMJAbdul AzizMAHanafiMBMohammad ShariffNIRamlanNHJamilNBMustaphaNHHasman YusriNBShahriNAIsmailRBZamriSMUnderstanding of antibiotic use and resistance among final-year pharmacy and medical students: a pilot study.J Infect Dev Ctries2014878078510.3855/jidc.383324916878Khan A KABanuGK KRAntibiotic resistance and usage-a survey on the knowledge, attitude, perceptions and practices among the medical students of a southern Indian teaching hospitalJ Clin Diagn Res201371613161610.7860/JCDR/2013/6290.323024086854HoqueRMostafaAHaqueMInsight of medical students of clinical years to antimicrobials prescribing and resistance in private medical school, Chittagong, Bangladesh.J of Young Pharmacists2016844745510.5530/jyp.2016.4.22LutherVPOhlCAHicksLAAntimicrobial stewardship education for medical students.Clin Infect Dis201357136610.1093/cid/cit48023893971Shankar PR, Bajracharya O, Jha N, Gurung SB, Singh KK. Teaching medical students to use antibiotics rationally in a medical school in Nepal. Edu Med J. 2011;2(10):WMC002329.D Walker, T Fowler, editors. Annual report of the Chief Medical Officer. Volume 2. Infections and the rise of antimicrobial resistance. Department of Health; 2011 [cited 14 Oct 2017]; Available from: http://media.dh.gov.uk/network/357/files/2013/03/CMO-Annual-Report-Volume-2-20111.pdf.MoodyJCosgroveSEOlmstedRSeptimusEAuredenKOriolaSPatelGWTrivediKKAntimicrobial stewardship: a collaborative partnership between infection preventionists and healthcare epidemiologists.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol20123332833010.1086/66503722418626DaveyPHudsonSRidgwayGReevesDA survey of undergraduate and continuing medical education about antimicrobial chemotherapy in the United Kingdom. British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Working Party on Antimicrobial Use.Br J Clin Pharmacol19933651151910.1111/j.1365-2125.1993.tb00409.x12964555GrantMJBoothAA typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.Health Info Libr J20092691910810.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x19490148Cooper ID. What is a “mapping study?” J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(1), 76-78. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluation of training. In: Craig R, Bittel I, editors. Training and development handbook. First edition. New York: McGraw-Hill;1967.KerrKGOtteryCHawkeyPMRobertsTEThe teaching of appropriate use of antimicrobials.Lancet20013582173217410.1016/S0140-6736(01)07211-711784670WrightEPJainPSurvey of antibiotic knowledge amongst final year medical students.J Antimicrob Chemother20045355055110.1093/jac/dkh09614762052DavenportLADaveyPGKerJSAn outcome-based approach for teaching prudent antimicrobial prescribing to undergraduate medical students: report of a Working Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.J Antimicrob Chemother20055619620310.1093/jac/dki12615914493MinenMTDuquaineDMarxMAWeissDA survey of knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of medical students concerning antimicrobial use and resistance.Microb Drug Resist20101628528910.1089/mdr.2010.000920624097ValentePLoraPSLandellMFSchiefelbeinCSGirardiFMSouzaLdos RZanonatoAScrofernekerMLA game for teaching antimicrobial mechanisms of action.Med Teach20093138339210.1080/0142159080263795819811173BeylefeldAAStruwigMCA gaming approach to learning medical microbiology: students' experiences of flow.Med Teach20072993394010.1080/0142159070160155018158668MarwickCANathwaniDImproving antimicrobial prescribing through knowledge and skills.J Antimicrob Chemother20075981982010.1093/jac/dkl54617283032HuangYGuJZhangMRenZYangWChenYFuYChenXCalsJWZhangFKnowledge, attitude and practice of antibiotics: a questionnaire study among 2500 Chinese students.BMC Med Educ20131310.1186/1472-6920-13-16324321449GhafurAIndia must overhaul medical training to act on antimicrobial resistance.BMJ2013347423010.1136/bmj.f423023823999Pulcini C, Gyssens IC. How to educate prescribers in antimicrobial stewardship practices. Virulence. 2013;4(2):192-202.McNulty CA, Cookson BD, Lewis MA. Education of healthcare professionals and the public. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012; 67 Suppl 1:i11-8.Greenwood D. Resistance to antimicrobial agents: a personal view. J Med Microbiol. 1998;47(9):751-755.Lee CR, Cho IH, Jeong BC, Lee SH. Strategies to minimize antibiotic resistance. Int J Environ Res Pub Heal. 2013;10(9):4274-4305.LeeCRLeeJHKangLWJeongBCLeeSHEducational effectiveness, target, and content for prudent antibiotic use.Biomed Res Int201520152140211010.1155/2015/21402125945327DawsonSJBennettHOngleyVE-learning module for delivering infection prevention and control training.J Hosp Infect201076899010.1016/j.jhin.2010.05.00220633958ZaminMTPitreMMConlyJMDevelopment of an intravenous-to-oral route conversion program for antimicrobial therapy at a Canadian tertiary care health facility.Ann Pharmacother19973156457010.1177/1060028097031005079161649ThamlikitkulVDanchaivijitrSKongpattanakulSCkokloikaewSImpact of an educational program on antibiotic use in a tertiary care hospital in a developing country.J Clin Epidemiol1998517737789731926De Souza V, MacFarlane A, Murphy AW, Hanahoe B, Barber A, Cormican M. A qualitative study of factors influencing antimicrobial prescribing by non-consultant hospital doctors. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006;58(4):840-843.PhilpJRWilfordRJLowIWImplications for medical education of nonrational prescribing by residents.J Med Educ1986614184203701821BrennanNMattickKA systematic review of educational interventions to change behaviour of prescribers in hospital settings, with a particular emphasis on new prescribers.Br J Clin Pharmacol20137535937210.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04397.x22831632NifakosSTomsonTZaryNCombining physical and virtual contexts through augmented reality: design and evaluation of a prototype using a drug box as a marker for antibiotic training.PeerJ2014269710.7717/peerj.69725548733Welch SA, Novy M, Preisz P, Quinn DI, Whicker SD, Brown SE, et al. Promoting rational prescribing by emergency department junior medical officers. Aust J Hosp Pharm. 2000;30(6):262-267.BannanABuonoEMcLawsMLGottliebTA survey of medical staff attitudes to an antibiotic approval and stewardship programme.Intern Med J20093966266810.1111/j.1445-5994.2009.01936.x19383062FarynaAWergowskeGLGoldenbergKImpact of therapeutic guidelines on antibiotic use by residents in primary care clinics.J Gen Intern Med1987210210710.1007/bf025963063559774FeuchtCLRiceLBAn interventional program to improve antibiotic use.Ann Pharmacother20033764665110.1345/aph.1C16612708938IkaiHMorimotoTShimboTImanakaYKoikeKImpact of postgraduate education on physician practice for community-acquired pneumonia.J Eval Clin Pract20121838939510.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01594.x21208347LégaréFLabrecqueMGodinGLeBlancALaurierCGrimshawJCastelJTremblayIFrémontPCauchonMLemieuxKRhéaumeCTraining family physicians and residents in family medicine in shared decision making to improve clinical decisions regarding the use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections: protocol for a clustered randomized controlled trial.BMC Fam Pract201112310.1186/1471-2296-12-321269509MainBKoernerRJThe medical educators' contribution to curtailing antimicrobial resistance.J Grad Med Educ2012439239210.4300/JGME-D-12-00103.123997893TemteJLShultPAKirkCJAmspaughJEffects of viral respiratory disease education and surveillance on antibiotic prescribing.Fam Med1999311011069990499ZwarNAGordonJJSanson-FisherRWEvaluation of an educational program in rational prescribing for GP trainees.Aust Fam Physician1995248338387794146ZwarNWolkJGordonJSanson-FisherRKehoeLInfluencing antibiotic prescribing in general practice: a trial of prescriber feedback and management guidelines.Fam Pract19991649550010.1093/fampra/16.5.49510533946LeeTCFrenetteCJayaramanDGreenLPiloteLAntibiotic self-stewardship: trainee-led structured antibiotic time-outs to improve antimicrobial use.Ann Intern Med2014161535810.7326/M13-301625402404IrfanNBrooksAMithoowaniSCelettiSJMainCMertzDA controlled quasi-experimental study of an educational intervention to reduce the unnecessary use of antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria.PLoS ONE201510013207110.1371/journal.pone.013207126182348McLellanLDornanTNewtonPWilliamsSDLewisPSteinkeDTullyMPPharmacist-led feedback workshops increase appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials.J Antimicrob Chemother2016711415142510.1093/jac/dkv48226917681PisanoJPettitNBartlettABhagatPHanZLiaoCLandonESocial media as a tool for antimicrobial stewardship.Am J Infect Control2016441231123610.1016/j.ajic.2016.07.00527810065NandPWilsonMDCohenSHBrownJCurbing antimicrobial resistance: Do physicians receive adequate education about antibiograms?J Infect20167212712910.1016/j.jinf.2015.09.03626449880Le NormandYDrugeonHBPotelGKerguerisMFRaffiFMilpiedNDouetMCCaillonJRoźeJCTeaching individualized antibiotic dosage regimens by means of two computer-assisted learning programs.Int J Biomed Comput1994361171197927849BainDJPractice research. Training for general practice: clinical behaviour in trainers and trainees.Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)198428876276410.1136/bmj.288.6419.7626423070DaveyPGarnerSProfessional education on antimicrobial prescribing: a report from the Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance (SACAR) Professional Education Subgroup.J Antimicrob Chemother2007273210.1093/jac/dkm15417656378Lodico MG, Spaulding DT, Voegtle KH. Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.SpellbergBBlaserMGuidosRJBoucherHWBradleyJSEisensteinBIGerdingDLynfieldRRellerLBRexJSchwartzDSeptimusETenoverFCGilbertDNCombating antimicrobial resistance: policy recommendations to save lives.Clin Infect Dis201139742810.1093/cid/cir15321474585Frank JR, Snell L, Sherbino J, editors. CanMEDS 2015 Physician competency framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015.FrenkJChenLBhuttaZACohenJCrispNEvansTFinebergHGarciaPKeYKelleyPKistnasamyBMeleisANaylorDPablos-MendezAReddySScrimshawSSepulvedaJSerwaddaDZuraykHHealth professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world.The Lancet20103761923195810.1016/s0140-6736(10)61854-5