Skip to main content

Table 4 Barriers to implementation of AMS

From: Assessing the impact of the Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) on hospital antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results of a worldwide survey

 

n (%)

High-income countries (n = 80)

Low- and middle-income countries (n = 163)

Total (n = 243)

p-value* (α = 0.0026)

Lack of time to perform AMS activities

50 (62.5)

78 (47.9)

128 (52.7)

0.044

Lack of knowledge on good prescribing practices

28 (35.0)

74 (45.4)

102 (42.0)

0.160

Lack of funding for AMS programme

41 (51.3)

56 (34.4)

97 (39.9)

0.017

Lack of cooperation from prescribers

21 (26.3)

67 (41.1)

88 (36.2)

0.034

Lack of information technology

37 (46.3)

36 (22.1)

73 (30.0)

 < 0.001

Unavailability of prescribing guidelines

6 (7.5)

58 (35.6)

64 (26.3)

 < 0.001

Lack of qualified personnel

13 (16.3)

44 (27.0)

57 (23.5)

0.090

Lack of support from hospital management

14 (17.5)

40 (24.5)

54 (22.2)

0.282

Insufficient laboratory capacity

10 (12.5)

57 (35.0)

54 (22.2)

 < 0.001

Lack of expertise/training within the AMS team

13 (16.3)

32 (19.6)

45 (18.5)

0.644

Suboptimal use of laboratory services

2 (2.5)

35 (21.5)

37 (15.2)

 < 0.001

Lack of confidence in the hospital's IPC** processes

4 (5.0)

29 (17.8)

33 (13.6)

0.011

Lack of trust in prescribing guidelines

7 (8.8)

23 (14.1)

30 (12.4)

0.324

Regular shortages/stock outs of essential antibiotics

4 (5.0)

24 (14.7)

28 (11.5)

0.044

Patient demands

7 (8.8)

18 (11.0)

25 (10.3)

0.743

Poor quality of antibiotics

0 (0.0)

15 (9.2)

15 (6.2)

0.003

High cost of antibiotics

0 (0.0)

15 (9.2)

15 (6.2)

0.003

No barriers

5 (6.3)

1 (0.6)

6 (2.5)

0.016

  1. *Statistical significance evaluated using the Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Significance level (α) has been corrected for multiple testing. **Infection prevention and control
  2. Values in boldface indicate statistical significance