Skip to main content
. 2024 Mar 22;15:1345145. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1345145

Table 2.

Results of sub-group meta-analysis of good knowledge, positive attitudes, and good practices regards AMR.

Outcomes Participants characteristics Included studies Total participants Effect size (95% CI) Heterogeneity
I2-value P-value
Good knowledge Tertiary school students 8 2,721 66.20 (51.77, 80.64) 99.0% <0.001
Health care workers 15 5,076 59.30 (45.19, 73.42) 99.3% <0.001
General population 9 7,464 53.20 (42.72, 63.67) 98.8% <0.001
Patients 3 1,094 49.82 (40.04, 59.60) 93.3% <0.001
Livestock producers 3 1,614 19.09 (16.76, 21.42) 00.0% 0.830
Total 38 55.33 (47.48, 63.18) 99.3% <0.001
Good practices Tertiary school students 5 1810 57.94 (45.78, 70.10) 96.5% <0.001
General population 6 4,799 52.93 (44.60, 61.25) 96.6% <0.001
Healthcare workers 8 2,892 49.94 (35.33, 64.56) 98.5% <0.001
Patients 4 2,414 45.49 (39.12, 51.87) 89.7% <0.001
Livestock producers 2 715 44.31(−0.66, 89.29) 99.1% <0.001
Total 25 51.05 (45.24, 56.87) 97.8% <0.001
Positive attitudes Tertiary school students 5 1,112 55.81 (14.73, 96.90) 99.9% <0.001
Healthcare workers 10 5,457 49.54 (35.92, 63.16) 98.6% <0.001
General population 7 2,765 44.64 (33.93, 55.36) 97.9% <0.001
Patients 3 1,614 38.43 (33.81, 43.05) 70.4% 0.034
Livestock producers 3 1,094 36.59 (−0.22, 73.41) 99.5% <0.001
Total 28 46.93 (35.10, 58.76) 99.6% <0.001