BackgroundHigh consumption of antibiotics has been identified as an important driver for the increasing antibiotic resistance, considered to be one of the greatest threats to public health globally. Simply informing the public about this consequence is insufficient to induce behavioral change. This study explored beliefs and perceptions among Swedes, with the aim of identifying factors promoting and hindering a judicious approach to antibiotics use. The study focused primarily on the medical use of antibiotics, also considering other aspects connected with antibiotic resistance, such as travelling and food consumption.MethodsData were collected through focus group discussions at the end of 2016. Twenty-three Swedes were recruited using an area-based approach and purposive sampling, aiming for as heterogeneous groups as possible regarding gender (13 women, 10 men), age (range 20–81, mean 38), and education level. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The Health Belief Model was used as a theoretical framework.ResultsAntibiotic resistance was identified by participants as a health threat with the potential for terrible consequences. The severity of the problem was perceived more strongly than the actual likelihood of being affected by it. Metaphors such as climate change were abundantly employed to describe antibiotic resistance as a slowly emerging problem. There was a tension between individual (egoistic) and collective (altruistic) reasons for engaging in judicious behavior. The individual effort needed and antibiotics overprescribing were considered major barriers to such behavior. In their discussions, participants stressed the need for empowerment, achieved through good health communication from authorities and family physicians.ConclusionsKnowledge about antibiotic consumption and resistance, as well as values such as altruism and trust in the health care system, has significant influence on both perceptions of individual responsibility and on behavior. This suggests that these factors should be emphasized in health education and health promotion. To instead frame antibiotic resistance as a slowly emerging disaster, risks diminish the public perception of being susceptible to it.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6047-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Due to the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance, medically unwarranted use of antibiotics has assumed new moral significance. In this paper, a thematic content analysis of focus group discussions was conducted to explore lay people’s views on the moral challenges posed by antibiotic resistance. The most important finding is that lay people are morally sensitive to the problems entailed by antibiotic resistance. Participants saw the decreasing availability of effective antibiotics as a problem of justice. This involves individual as well as collective moral responsibility. Yet, holding agents responsible for their use of antibiotics involves varying degrees of demandingness. In our discussion, these findings are related to the contemporary ethical debate on antibiotic resistance and two proposals for the preservation of antibiotic effectiveness are compared to and evaluated against participants’ views.

At the beginning of 2020, the widespread diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 rapidly became a worldwide priority. In Italy, the government implemented a lockdown for more than two months (March 9–May 18). Aware of the uniqueness of such an experience, we designed an online qualitative study focused on three main dimensions: daily life during the lockdown, relationships with others, and public health issues. The aim was to gain insights into people’s experiences of, and attitudes toward, the changes caused by public health measures implemented as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted 18 semi-structured interviews with Italian residents. The interviewees were recruited through mediators using purposive sampling to obtain a balanced sample with respect to age, gender, education, and geographical residence. Interviews were analyzed through qualitative content analysis. The lockdown affected a variety of aspects of people’s life, resulting in a significant re-shaping of daily activities and relationships. These changes, which entailed both positive and negative aspects, were met with resilience. Even though public health measures were generally considered acceptable and adequate, they were also perceived to generate uncertainty and stress as well as to reveal tensions within the public health system. When tasked with imagining a scenario with saturated intensive care units and the need for selection criteria, respondents showed a tendency to dodge the question and struggled to formulate criteria. Media and news were found to be confusing, leading to a renewed critical attitude toward information. The findings shed some light on the impact of the lockdown on people’s daily life and its effects on relationships with others. Furthermore, the study contributes to an understanding of people’s reasons for, and capacity to respond to, emergency public health measures.