Inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing is considered to be the leading cause of high burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in resource-constrained lower- and middle-income countries. Under its global action plan, the World Health Organization has envisaged tackling the AMR threat through promotion of rational antibiotic use among prescribers. Given the lack of consensus definitions and other associated challenges, we sought to devise and validate an Antimicrobial Rationality Assessment Tool—AmRAT—for standardizing the assessment of appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing. A consensus algorithm was developed by a multidisciplinary team consisting of intensivists, internal medicine practitioners, clinical pharmacologists, and infectious disease experts. The tool was piloted by 10 raters belonging to three groups of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) personnel: Master of Pharmacology (M.Sc.) (n = 3, group A), Doctor of Medicine (MD) residents (n = 3, group B), and DM residents in clinical pharmacology (n = 4, group C) using retrospective patient data from 30 audit and feedback forms collected as part of an existing AMS program. Percentage agreement and the kappa (κ) coefficients were used to measure inter-rater agreements amongst themselves and with expert opinion. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were analyzed comparing their assessments against the gold standard. For the overall assessment of rationality, the mean percent agreement with experts was 76.7% for group A, 68.9% for group B, and 77.5% for group C. The kappa values indicated moderate agreement for all raters in group A (κ 0.47–0.57), and fair to moderate in group B (κ 0.22–0.46) as well as group C (κ 0.37–0.60). Sensitivity and specificity for the same were 80% and 68.6%, respectively. Though evaluated by raters with diverse educational background and variable AMS experience in this pilot study, our tool demonstrated high percent agreement and good sensitivity and specificity, assuring confidence in its utility for assessing appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions in resource-constrained healthcare environments.

Background: It is well established by research that large-scale and indiscriminate prescribing, dispensing, and use of antimicrobials drive antimicrobial resistance (AMR) endangering the health and well-being of people, animals, and the environment. In the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the prescribing of antimicrobials is often not based on biomedical rationality but involves alternative logic driven by social, cultural, and institutional factors. This paper seeks to develop a “biosocial” perspective, reflecting a unified perspective that treats the biomedical and social conditions as two sides of the same coin. Methods: This analysis is based on an empirical investigation of prescription slips that patients carry to buy drugs from the pharmacy following an outpatient department encounter with the clinician. Data collection involves mixed methods, including the quantitative analysis of the antimicrobials prescribed and a qualitative analysis of the underlying reasons for these prescriptions, as described by doctors, pharmacists, and patients. Data analysis involved triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, to develop a “biosocial” perspective, which can provide implications for the development of antimicrobial stewardship policies, particularly relevant for health institutions in low- and middle-income countries. Results: Our analysis of 1175 prescription slips showed that 98% contained antimicrobials, with 74% being broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Only 9% of cases were advised antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST) before initiating treatment. Qualitative findings indicated that patients had poor awareness of antimicrobials and pharmacists played a crucial role in counseling. Conclusions: This study highlights that antimicrobial prescriptions in public health settings are influenced by both biomedical and social factors, supporting a biosocial perspective. Although AMS interventions are predominantly biomedical, adhering to clinical standards and best practices, this study underscores the necessity of integrating a biosocial viewpoint by incorporating the experiences of pharmacists and patient groups. Strengthening diagnostic support, patient education, and interprofessional collaboration could improve rational antimicrobial uses in low-resource settings.

It is well established by research that large-scale and indiscriminate prescribing, dispensing and use of antimicrobials drive antimicrobial resistance (AMR) endangering the health and well-being of people, animals, and the environment. In the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the prescribing of antimicrobials is often not based on biomedical rationality but involves alternative logic driven by social, cultural, and institutional factors. This paper seeks to develop a “biosocial” perspective, reflecting a unified perspective that treats the biomedical and social conditions as two sides of the same coin. This integrated perspective helps develop synergistic insights on both the nature of prescriptions and why they occur. This analysis is based on an empirical investigation of prescription slips that patients carry to buy drugs from the pharmacy following an outpatient department encounter with the clinician. Data collection involves mixed methods, including the quantitative analysis of the antimicrobials prescribed and a qualitative analysis of the underlying reasons for these prescriptions, as described by doctors, pharmacists, and patients. Data analysis involved triangulating quantitative and qualitative data, to develop a “biosocial” perspective, which can provide implications for the development of antimicrobial stewardship policies, particularly relevant for health institutions in low- and middle-income countries.