4.3 Article

Antimicrobial resistance: Concerns of healthcare providers and people with CF

期刊

JOURNAL OF CYSTIC FIBROSIS
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 407-412

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.05.009

关键词

Cystic fibrosis; Antimicrobial resistance; Survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the attitudes of healthcare providers and people with cystic fibrosis or their parents towards antimicrobial resistance (AMR) internationally. Findings showed that both groups are concerned about AMR, with Pseudomonas spp. and Burkholderia spp. being the most concerning organisms. There was a discrepancy in AMR education discussions between healthcare providers and people with cystic fibrosis.
Background: Chronic lung infections and their treatment pose risks for the development of antimicro-bial resistance (AMR) in people with cystic fibrosis (PWCF). In this study, we evaluated the attitudes of healthcare providers' (HCP) and PWCF or their parents' toward AMR within the international CF commu-nity. Methods: HCP and PWCF identified through listservs and CF-related organizations were asked to com-plete an AMR centered survey, with additional questions on antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) for HCP. Descriptive analyses are reported. Results: The responding 443 HCP and 464 PWCF/Parents were from 30 and 25 countries, respec-tively. Sixty-two percent of HCP and 56% of PWCF stated they were very concerned about AMR, with Pseudomonas spp. and Burkholderia spp. considered the most concerning organisms for both HCP and PWCF/Parents. Non-tuberculous mycobacteria were of greater concern to HCP compared to PWCF/Parents. There was a discrepancy regarding AMR education to PWCF, with 80% of HCP stating having discussed this with PWCF/Parents, but only 50% of PWCF recalling such discussions. Conclusion: These results highlight that AMR is relevant to CF HCP and PWCF internationally, indicating that educational tools and research are warranted. (c) 2020 European Cystic Fibrosis Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据