BackgroundPoverty increases the risk of contracting infectious diseases and therefore exposure to antibiotics. Yet there is lacking evidence on the relationship between income and non-income dimensions of poverty and antimicrobial resistance. Investigating such relationship would strengthen antimicrobial stewardship interventions.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EBSCO, HMIC, and Web of Science databases were searched in October 2016. Prospective and retrospective studies reporting on income or non-income dimensions of poverty and their influence on colonisation or infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms were retrieved. Study quality was assessed with the Integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool.ResultsNineteen articles were reviewed. Crowding and homelessness were associated with antimicrobial resistance in community and hospital patients. In high-income countries, low income was associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii resistance and a seven-fold higher infection rate. In low-income countries the findings on this relation were contradictory. Lack of education was linked to resistant S. pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. Two papers explored the relation between water and sanitation and antimicrobial resistance in low-income settings.ConclusionsDespite methodological limitations, the results suggest that addressing social determinants of poverty worldwide remains a crucial yet neglected step towards preventing antimicrobial resistance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40249-018-0459-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Despite a large literature on surgical site infection (SSI), the determinants of prevention behaviours in surgery remain poorly studied. Understanding key social and contextual components of surgical staff behaviour may help to design and implement infection control (IC) improvement interventions in surgery. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with surgeons ( n = 8), nurses ( n = 5) theatre personnel ( n = 3), and other healthcare professionals involved in surgery ( n = 4) in a 1500-bed acute care London hospital group. Participants were approached through established mailing lists and snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed thematically using a constant comparative approach. Results IC behaviour of surgical staff was governed by factors at individual, team, and wider hospital level. IC practices were linked to the perceived risk of harm caused by an SSI more than the development of an SSI alone. Many operating room participants saw SSI prevention as a team responsibility. The sense of ownership over SSI occurence was closely tied to how preventable staff perceived infections to be, with differences observed between clean and contaminated surgery. However, senior surgeons claimed personal accountability for rates despite feeling SSIs are often not preventable. Hierarchy impacted on behaviour in different ways depending on whether it was within or between professional categories. One particular knowledge gap highlighted was the lack of awareness regarding criteria for SSI diagnosis. Conclusions To influence IC behaviours in surgery, interventions need to consider the social team structure and shared ownership of the clinical outcome in order to increase the awareness in specialties where SSIs are not seen as serious complications. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-019-0565-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAntibiotic resistance (ABR) is an urgent problem globally, with overuse and misuse of antibiotics being one of the main drivers of antibiotic-resistant infections. There is increasing evidence that the burden of community-acquired infections such as urinary tract infections and bloodstream infections (both susceptible and resistant) may differ by ethnicity, although the reasons behind this relationship are not well defined. It has been demonstrated that socioeconomic status and ethnicity are often highly correlated with each other; however, it is not yet known whether accounting for deprivation completely explains any discrepancy seen in infection risk. There have currently been no systematic reviews summarising the evidence for the relationship between ethnicity and antibiotic resistance or prescribing.MethodsThis protocol will outline how we will conduct this systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigating whether there is an association between patient ethnicity and (1) risk of antibiotic-resistant infections or (2) levels of antibiotic prescribing in high-income countries. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus and CINAHL using MESH terms where applicable. Two reviewers will conduct title/abstract screening, data extraction and quality assessment independently. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist will be used for cohort and case-control studies, and the Cochrane collaboration’s risk of bias tool will be used for randomised control trials, if they are included. Meta-analyses will be performed by calculating the minority ethnic group to majority ethnic group odds ratios or risk ratios for each study and presenting an overall pooled odds ratio for the two outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence.DiscussionIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will aim to collate the available evidence of whether there is a difference in rates of AMR and/or antibiotic prescribing in minority vs. majority ethnic groups in high-income countries. Additionally, this review will highlight areas where more research needs to be conducted and may provide insight into what may cause differences in this relationship, should they be seen.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (CRD42016051533)Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0654-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.