↓ Skip to main content

Evidence of factors influencing self-medication with antibiotics in LMICs: a systematic scoping review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence of factors influencing self-medication with antibiotics in LMICs: a systematic scoping review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0758-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neusa Fernanda Torres, Buyisile Chibi, Lyn E. Middleton, Vernon P. Solomon, Tivani Mashamba-Thompson

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the need for strengthening the capacity of all developing countries in the early warning, risk reduction and management of national as well as global health risks. Despite there being a considerable amount of effort in controlling and promoting the rational use of antibiotics, studies show that the practice of self-medication with antibiotics (SMA) systematically exposes individuals to the risk of antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic side effects. The proposed scoping review aims to map literature on the factors influencing self-medication with antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The adopted search strategy for this scoping review study will involve electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Science Direct, EBSCOhost (PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE), Google Scholar, BioMed Central and World Health Organization library. A two-stage mapping strategy will be conducted. Stage 1 will screen studies through examining their titles and screening abstracts descriptively by focus and method as stipulated by the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In stage 2, the researchers will extract data from the included studies. A parallel screening and data extraction will be undertaken by two reviewers. In accessing the quality of the included studies, the researchers will utilize the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT, version 11). The NVivo computer software (version 11) shall be used to classify, sort, arrange and examine relationships in the data, and to extract the relevant outcomes and for the thematic analysis of the studies. The study anticipates finding relevant studies reporting evidence on the factors influencing self-medication with antibiotics in LMICs. The evidence obtained from the included studies will help guide future research. The study findings will be disseminated electronically and in print with presentations being done at relevant platforms, i.e. conferences related to antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance, health seeking behaviour and the use of medicines. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017072954.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 24 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,143,059
of 13,285,014 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#960
of 1,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,969
of 267,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#18
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,285,014 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.