The global prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the adult population: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1186/s13643-025-02783-6
Tigist Gashaw, Tesfaye Assebe Yadeta, Fitsum Weldegebreal, Lemma Demissie, Abera Jambo, Nega Assefa
{"title":"The global prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the adult population: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Tigist Gashaw, Tesfaye Assebe Yadeta, Fitsum Weldegebreal, Lemma Demissie, Abera Jambo, Nega Assefa","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02783-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Antibiotic self-medication (ASM) is when a person takes antibiotics without a prescription or consulting a healthcare professional. These practices contribute to the misuse of medicines and antibiotic resistance which is a growing global health threat that can lead to longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality rates. Though various studies have been conducted on ASM in different countries, there has not yet been a systematic review that comprehensively assesses the problem in the entire globe. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the global pooled prevalence of antibiotic self-medication and the reasons for its practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic search of electronic registers and databases was conducted on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature including institutional repositories, and national health databases. It used carefully selected keywords and indexing terms in the past ten years. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical checklist extracted relevant data after appraisal. Narrative analysis was used for descriptive data while Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software was used to analyze quantitative data. Statistics were used to look for heterogeneity, publication bias, and correlations. Sensitivity tests and sub-group analysis were employed to compare outcomes. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-one studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number of participants was 63,251 with sample sizes ranging from 110 to 15,526. In primary outcomes, ASM ranged from 0.65 to 92.2%. The pooled prevalence of ASM globally was 43.0% (95% CI: 38.0, 48.1%). A high degree of heterogeneity across studies was shown with I<sup>2</sup> = 99.2%, p < 0.001 assuming a random effect model. In subgroup analysis, the highest ASM pooled prevalence was 55.2% (95% CI: 47.2, 63.2) in sub-Saharan Africa followed by the Middle East, North Africa, and Greater Arabia at 48.3% (95% CI: 38.3, 58.4), Europe at 34.7% (95% CI:18.0, 56.4), and Asia at 25.8% (95% CI: 18.6, 34.6). Students have been identified as the major users of ASM at 62.1% (95% CI: 53.7, 69.7). The meta-regression showed a coefficient of 0.0365, -0.0117, and -0.0001 for a year of publication, recall time, and total sample size, respectively. Publication bias was demonstrated from the asymmetrical distribution of the funnel plot, and the Eggers regression p-value was greater than 0.05 (0.264). Moreover, knowledge of antibiotics (46.19% (95% CI: 27.99, 65.46)), previous successful experiences (39.13% (95% CI: 30.13, 48.93)), and perceiving illness as minor (38.10% (95% CI: 27.19, 50.37)) were the top three reasons pooled proportion for practicing ASM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ASM practice was higher among African and student users. The previous successful experience was the most frequent reason reported. Educational level, gender, and age were often mentioned as predictor factors. Hence, designing interventional approaches that consider the different burdens among the target population and tackle the reasons for the practices might benefit averting antimicrobial resistance.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"49"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11863577/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02783-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Antibiotic self-medication (ASM) is when a person takes antibiotics without a prescription or consulting a healthcare professional. These practices contribute to the misuse of medicines and antibiotic resistance which is a growing global health threat that can lead to longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality rates. Though various studies have been conducted on ASM in different countries, there has not yet been a systematic review that comprehensively assesses the problem in the entire globe. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the global pooled prevalence of antibiotic self-medication and the reasons for its practice.

Method: A systematic search of electronic registers and databases was conducted on PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature including institutional repositories, and national health databases. It used carefully selected keywords and indexing terms in the past ten years. The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical checklist extracted relevant data after appraisal. Narrative analysis was used for descriptive data while Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software was used to analyze quantitative data. Statistics were used to look for heterogeneity, publication bias, and correlations. Sensitivity tests and sub-group analysis were employed to compare outcomes. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

Results: Seventy-one studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number of participants was 63,251 with sample sizes ranging from 110 to 15,526. In primary outcomes, ASM ranged from 0.65 to 92.2%. The pooled prevalence of ASM globally was 43.0% (95% CI: 38.0, 48.1%). A high degree of heterogeneity across studies was shown with I2 = 99.2%, p < 0.001 assuming a random effect model. In subgroup analysis, the highest ASM pooled prevalence was 55.2% (95% CI: 47.2, 63.2) in sub-Saharan Africa followed by the Middle East, North Africa, and Greater Arabia at 48.3% (95% CI: 38.3, 58.4), Europe at 34.7% (95% CI:18.0, 56.4), and Asia at 25.8% (95% CI: 18.6, 34.6). Students have been identified as the major users of ASM at 62.1% (95% CI: 53.7, 69.7). The meta-regression showed a coefficient of 0.0365, -0.0117, and -0.0001 for a year of publication, recall time, and total sample size, respectively. Publication bias was demonstrated from the asymmetrical distribution of the funnel plot, and the Eggers regression p-value was greater than 0.05 (0.264). Moreover, knowledge of antibiotics (46.19% (95% CI: 27.99, 65.46)), previous successful experiences (39.13% (95% CI: 30.13, 48.93)), and perceiving illness as minor (38.10% (95% CI: 27.19, 50.37)) were the top three reasons pooled proportion for practicing ASM.

Conclusion: ASM practice was higher among African and student users. The previous successful experience was the most frequent reason reported. Educational level, gender, and age were often mentioned as predictor factors. Hence, designing interventional approaches that consider the different burdens among the target population and tackle the reasons for the practices might benefit averting antimicrobial resistance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol. Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol. Self-care interventions among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review. Caregiver experiences and needs in pediatric rheumatic disease: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. The global prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among the adult population: systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1