Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0258698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258698

Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics: Findings from a nationwide survey of the general public in Malaysia

Li Ping Wong 1,*, Haridah Alias 1, Suraya Amir Husin 2, Zawaniah Brukan Ali 2, Benedict Sim 3, Sasheela Sri La Sri Ponnampalavanar 4,*
Editor: Pathiyil Ravi Shankar5
PMCID: PMC8528291  PMID: 34669733

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global public health. Misuse of antibiotics has never been investigated on a nationwide scale among the general public in Malaysia. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic and knowledge factors associated with inappropriate use of antibiotics in the Malaysian context to inform the development of interventions to mitigate inappropriate antibiotic use. We conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) between June 2019 and December 2019. The telephone numbers were randomly generated from the electronic residential telephone directory of all 13 states and 3 Federal Territories in Malaysia. The survey consisted of questions on demographics, knowledge about antibiotics and antibiotic resistance (53 items), and practices of antibiotic use (16 questions). A total of 864 complete responses were received. Pronounced erroneous beliefs that antibiotics are effective against infections caused by viruses and that antibiotics can speed up recovery from coughs and colds were evident. The proportions that were aware of the terms ‘drug resistance’, ‘antimicrobial resistance’, and ‘superbugs’ were low. The mean and standard deviation (SD) for the antibiotic knowledge score was 23.7 (SD ±9.25; range 0 to 50) out of a possible score of 52. Regarding antibiotic practices, a considerable proportion reported non-adherence to recommended doses. The mean and SD for the antibiotic practices score was 37.9 (SD ± 6.5; range 17 to 47) out of a possible score of 48. Participants who earned an average monthly household income of MYR1001-3000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04–2.50) were more likely to report higher antibiotic practice scores than those with <MYR1000. Participants with tertiary education attainment reported higher antibiotic practice scores (OR 1.99; 95%CI 1.02–3.91) than those with primary school and below. High antibiotic knowledge scores (OR 3.94; 95% CI 2.71–5.73) were associated with higher antibiotic practice scores. Inappropriate antibiotic use is influenced by demographics and antibiotic knowledge. This study calls for education interventions focused on the lower socio-economic status population to increase awareness and to promote appropriate antibiotic use.

Introduction

Antimicrobial resistance is a public health concern around the world that significantly impacts patient health and poses a serious threat to the future health and welfare of both humans and animals [1]. It is well-recognised that inappropriate antibiotic use is an important and modifiable driver of antibiotic resistance [2, 3]. The consequences of antibiotic resistance are numerous, ranging from increased healthcare costs, increased morbidity and mortality, and reduced effectiveness of health delivery services [4]. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an estimated of 2.8million people are infected with antibiotic-resistance bacteria or fungi, and more than 35,000 people die as a result [5].

Toward the aim of promoting appropriate antibiotic use, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for action to improve antimicrobial awareness and promote behavioural change through effective communication and education [6]. Hence, public awareness of antibiotic resistance is crucial to mitigating this insidious problem. It is well-established that poor knowledge regarding antibiotic usage gives rise to inappropriate consumption of antibiotics, causing the emergence of resistant microorganisms [7]. Various forms of inappropriate use of antibiotics, such as incomplete of the entire course of antibiotic treatment, skipping doses, using leftover antibiotics from previous treatment, misuse of antibiotics to cure viral infections, and self-medication or purchase of antibiotics without prescription have been commonly reported [8].

The role of the public in tackling antimicrobial resistance is undeniably important. Despite this, there are still few studies addressing the level of knowledge and awareness on antibiotic resistance in the Malaysian context. As knowledge about the risk associated with misuse of antibiotics is the key to dealing with antibiotic resistance, understanding the level of knowledge on antibiotics and the practice of antibiotic use is crucial for providing insight into designing educational interventions. There have been several small-scale studies conducted in Malaysia, all of which suggest that local communities exhibit gaps in antibiotic awareness and appropriate antibiotic use [911]. Furthermore, most of these studies have been limited by small sample size. Nonetheless, large-scale population-level data are lacking. Furthermore, comprehensive antibiotic-related knowledge and practices in Malaysia have not been reported. In view of this, this study aimed to investigate a wide range of knowledge on antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance, as well as inappropriate antibiotic practices at a nationwide level.

Materials and method

Participants recruitment

We conducted a cross-sectional nationwide survey of the general population in Malaysia. Telephone interviews were conducted between June 2019 and Dec 2019 using a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) system. The telephone numbers were randomly generated by computer from the latest electronic residential telephone directory (2018/2019) of all 13 states and 3 Federal Territories in Malaysia to obtain a representative sample. The sample size was calculated using the equation: n = Z2 p(1-p)/d2. Using a margin of error of 0.05 (5%), with a 95% CI and 50% response distribution, the calculated sample size was 384. Due to the use of convenience sampling, the sample size was multiplied by the predicted design effect of two. Therefore, the minimum survey sample size was set to 768 (384 x 2) participants. Based on an estimate of 10% response rate of telephone survey [12], approximately 11,000 phone numbers were randomly selected from the telephone directory. Inclusion criteria were: Malaysian citizen aged above 18 years old, had heard or known of antibiotics, and residing in the contacted household. In each contacted household, only one person was surveyed. If more than one person in the contacted household met the inclusion criteria, one person was randomly selected to respond to the survey using. A random number table was used to select the participant to be included in the survey. To avoid over-representation of unemployed participants, all interviews were conducted between 5:30 pm and 10:00 pm on weekdays and from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends or public holidays. Attempts to call at least two times on separate days we made for unanswered calls in the contacted household before being regarded as non-responses.

Instruments

The survey questionnaire consisted of three sections assessing: 1) socio-demographic characteristics, 2) antibiotic and antibiotic resistance-related knowledge, and 3) practices regarding antibiotic use.

Questions on knowledge about antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance consisted of six sections (52 items); i. general information about antibiotics (5 items), ii. antibiotic usage (7 items), iii. diseases that can be treated and cannot be treated with antibiotics (11 items), iv. antibiotic side effects (10 items), v. antibiotic resistance-related terms (5 items), and vi. antibiotic resistance problems (14 items). For each statement, the options answer were yes, no or don’t know. The correct response was given a score of one, and an incorrect or don’t know was scored as zero. Eight items where the correct response is false were reverse coded. Antibiotic knowledge scores were calculated by adding up the score on the 52 items. The possible score range between 0 and 52, with a higher score indicates a higher level of antibiotic knowledge. Practices of antibiotic use consisted of 16 questions; i. obtaining antibiotics (3 items) ii. antibiotic consumption and dosing (6 items), and iii. use of leftover antibiotics (7 items). For each question, the response options were never, rarely, sometimes, and often, scored as 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Negatively worded practices were reverse scored. The possible antibiotic practice scores ranged from 0 to 48, where higher scores implied a greater level of appropriate antibiotic use. The 52 items for knowledge and 16 items of the practice questions had reliability (Cronbach’s α) of 0.931 and 0.880, respectively.

All the questions were developed in reference to previous literature and guideline [13, 14] by the research team and validated by panel of experts that consisted of physicians, academicians, and veterinarians from government agencies. The questionnaire was developed in English. As the largest group of Malaysians consists of three main ethnicities, namely the Malays, Chinese, and Indians, the questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Malaysia (the national language of Malaysia), Chinese (Mandarin), and Tamil by native-speaking translators. The translated questionnaires were reviewed byindependent translators and back translation was conducted on the primary translated version. The questionnaire was pilot tested on random samples of the different ethnic populations from the telephone directory. A team of trained interviewers from three ethnic groups performed the interviews and each interviewer was assigned to interview respondents of a similar ethnic group. The interviewers were trained to reduce interviewer-related errors by ensuring that all respondents were asked identically worded questions without unscripted commentary that could bias response. Participation was voluntary and the participants provided verbal informed consent before the start of the telephone interview. They were also informed that completion of the telephone interviewed implied consent to participate.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the University of Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UM.TNC2/UMREC—531). Informed consent was obtained verbally before the commencement of the telephone interview. This method of consent was approved by the ethics committee.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the proportion of knowledge and antibiotic practices. The reliability of the knowledge and practices items were evaluated by assessing the internal consistency of the items representing the scores. The normality of total knowledge and practices scores were checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Dichotomization of total knowledge and practices scores were done using median split to form high and low score groups [15]. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the demographic factors influencing the level of knowledge. Multivariable logistic regression for the outcome variable antibiotic practices included demographic characteristics and level of knowledge. The method allows us to assess the impact of multiple covariates including the demographic variable in the prediction model. The outcome variable level of knowledge and antibiotic practices in the multivariate analyses we divided into two groups for comparison based on the median split. In the multivariable logistic regression analyses, all variables found to have a statistically significant association (two-tailed, p-value < 0.05) in the univariate analyses were entered into the model via forced-entry method. Odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (95%CI), and p-values were calculated for each independent variable. We conducted causal mediation analysis to investigate the effect of confounder bias on the casual inference of the mediator to the outcome variables using regression analysis. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Version 20.0 (SPSS; Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 11,036 randomised numbers were contacted and 1,005 people responded. Of these, only 864 (86.0%) had heard of or were aware of antibiotics and proceeded with the survey. The demographic characteristics of the 864 participants are shown in Table 1. The mean age was 47.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 18.0; range 18–89). The study had a slightly higher representation of female participants (67.8%, n = 586), participants with tertiary education attainment (49.5%, n = 428), and with an average monthly household income of MYR1001 to 3000 (47.8%, n = 413). By ethnicity, the majority were Malay (51.5%, n = 445).

Table 1. Univariable and multivariable of factors associated with knowledge and practice scores (N = 864).

Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis Univariable analysis Multivariable analysis
Knowledge scorea Practices scoreb
Frequency (%) (N = 864) Score 23–50 (n = 452) p-value Score 23–50 vs 0–22 OR (95% CI) Score 40–47 (n = 455) p-value Score 40–47 vs 17–39 OR (95% CI)
Socio-demographics
Age group (years)
 18–30 226 (26.2) 110 (48.7) 0.65 (0.41–1.02) 99 (43.8) Reference
 31–50 342 (39.6) 212 (62.0) p<0.001 1.27 (0.83–1.93) 166 (48.5) p<0.001 1.44 (0.93–2.22)
 51–89 296 (34.3) 130 (43.9) Reference 190 (64.2) 4.26 (2.53–7.16)***
Gender
 Male 278 (32.2) 148 (53.2) 0.716 136 (48.9) 0.145
 Female 586 (67.8) 304 (51.9) 319 (54.4)
Ethnicity
 Malay 445 (51.5) 291 (65.4) 2.06 (1.34–3.15)** 319 (71.7) 29.56 (15.57–56.09)***
 Chinese 228 (26.4) 73 (32.0) p<0.001 0.74 (0.47–1.17) 119 (52.2) p<0.001 19.98 (9.87–36.51)***
 Indian 185 (21.4) 87 (47.0) Reference 15 (8.1) Reference
 Others 6 (0.7) 1 (16.7) - 2 (33.3) -
Highest education level
 Primary school and below 124 (14.4) 41 (33.1) Reference 54 (43.5) Reference
 Secondary school 312 (36.1) 130 (41.7) p<0.001 1.37 (0.83–2.26) 152 (48.7) 0.004 1.56 (0.88–2.78)
 Tertiary 428 (49.5) 281 (65.7) 2.48 (1.41–4.34)** 249 (58.2) 1.99 (1.02–3.91)*
Average monthly household income (MYR)
 <RM1000 221 (25.6) 87 (39.4) Reference 98 (44.3) Reference
 RM1001-3000 413 (47.8) 223 (54.0) p<0.001 1.15 (0.78–1.73) 227 (55.0) 0.015 1.61 (1.04–2.50)*
 >RM3000 230 (26.6) 142 (61.7) 1.28 (0.78–2.10) 130 (56.5) 1.38 (0.82–2.34)
Occupation category
 Professional and managerial 182 (21.1) 130 (71.4) 1.45 (0.86–2.43) 96 (52.7)
 General worker/ Self-employed 239 (27.7) 111 (46.4) p<0.001 0.72 (0.46–1.13) 110 (46.0)
 Housewife 223 (25.8) 107 (48.0) 0.86 (0.54–1.37) 127 (57.0) 0.087
 Student/ Retired/ Unemployed 220 (25.5) 104 (47.3) Reference 122 (55.5)
Region ††
 Northern 142 (16.4) 56 (39.4) Reference 87 (61.3) 1.71 (0.64–4.56)
 Southern 259 (30.0) 124 (47.9) p<0.001 1.52 (0.96–2.42) 113 (43.6) 0.68 (0.27–1.74)
 Central 155 (17.9) 73 (47.1) 1.65 (0.99–2.76) 61 (39.4) p<0.001 0.72 (0.27–1.90)
 East Coast 275 (31.8) 183 (66.5) 2.28 (1.69–4.54)*** 177 (64.4) 0.77 (0.30–1.99)
 Borneo Island 33 (3.8) 16 (48.5) 1.66 (0.73–3.75) 17 (51.5) Reference
Area of living
 Urban 405 (46.9) 223 (55.1) 1.95 (1.24–3.08)** 193 (47.7) Reference
 Suburban 279 (32.3) 156 (55.9) 0.002 1.74 (1.12–2.68)* 157 (56.3) 0.020 0.87 (0.58–1.31)
 Rural 180 (20.8) 73 (40.6) Reference 105 (58.3) 0.86 (0.52–1.40)
Antibiotic and antibiotic resistance related knowledge
Total knowledge score
 0–22 412 (47.7) 154 (37.4) p<0.001 Reference
 23–50 452 (52.3) 301 (66.6) 3.94 (2.71–5.73)***

Excluded from multivariable analysis due to small sample size.

††Central: Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Negeri Sembilan; Southern: Johor, Malacca; Northern: Perlis, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Perak; East Coast: Terengganu, Kelantan, Pahang; Borneo Island: Sabah, Sarawak, Labuan.

*p<0.05,

**p<0.01,

***p<0.001.

aHosmer–Lemeshow test, chi-square: 7.490, p-value: 0.485; Nagelkerke R2: 0.229.

b Hosmer–Lemeshow test, chi-square: 7.691, p-value: 0.464; Nagelkerke R2: 0.448.

Antibiotic and antibiotic resistance-related knowledge

S1 Fig shows the correct responses of knowledge items. The majority had good knowledge of antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance problems, where over 50% of participants provided correct responses on the question items. A small proportion was aware that antibiotics are not effective against infection caused by viruses (23.8%, n = 206) and that antibiotics cannot speed up recovery from coughs and colds (23.0%, n = 199). Additionally, a small proportion was aware that cold and flu cannot be treated by antibiotic (28.7%, n = 248). Awareness of terms such as ‘drug resistance’ (12.2%, n = 105), ‘antimicrobial resistance’ (6.0%, n = 52), and ‘superbugs’ (5.9%, n = 51) was extremely low. Knowledge regarding diseases that can or cannot be treated with antibiotics was also poor.

The mean for the antibiotic knowledge score was 23.7 (SD ±9.25; range 0 to 50) out of a possible score of 52. The median score was 23.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 17.0 to 29.0). On checking the normality distribution of the antibiotic knowledge score using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, it was found that the data were not normally distributed (p <0.05). The knowledge scores were categorised as a score of 23–50 or 0–22, based on the median split; as such, a total of 452 (52.3%; 95%CI 48.9 to 55.7) were categorised as having a score of 23 to 50 and 412 (47.7%; 95%CI 44.3 to 51.1) were categorised as having a score of 0–22. Higher score range indicates a higher level of knowledge. Table 1 shows the multivariable logistic regression analysis of demographics factors associated with having a higher knowledge score. Significantly higher knowledge scores were reported among the participants of the Malay ethnicity, whereas the lowest scores were found among the Chinese. There was a significant gradual increase in the level of knowledge as the level of educational attainment increased. By geographical region, participants from the East Coast and urban or suburban areas tended to have significantly higher knowledge scores. Higher average household income was found to be significantly associated with a higher level of knowledge in the univariate analyses, however the association was not significant in the multivariable model.

Practices regarding antibiotic use

S2 Fig shows the findings of practices relating to antibiotic use. Regarding practices of obtaining antibiotics, a small proportion reported ever obtaining antibiotics from a pharmacy without a physician prescription (18.3%, n = 158) and seeking alternative doctors in obtaining antibiotics if a doctor refused to prescribe antibiotics (10.9%, n = 94). Malpractice in adherence to recommended doses (25.0%, n = 216) and using a lower (8.2%, n = 71) or higher (6.7%, n = 58) antibiotic dose than recommended were reported. A considerable proportion reused leftover antibiotics from previous treatments (19.4%, n = 168), discarded leftover antibiotics (17.2%, n = 149), shared leftover antibiotics with other people (14.4%, n = 124), or gave leftover antibiotics to pets (5.4%, n = 47).

The mean for the antibiotic practice scores was 37.9 (SD ± 6.5; range 17 to 47) out of a possible score of 48. The median was 40.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 35.0 to 42.0). Likewise, the significant value of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was less than 0.05 implies the data were not normally distributed. The scores were categorised as a score of 40–47 or 17–39, based on the median split; as such, a total of 455 participants (52.7%; 95%CI 49.3 to 56.0) were categorised as having a score of 40 to 47 and 409 participants (47.3%; 95%CI 44.0 to 50.7) were categorised as having a score of 17–39. Higher score range indicates a higher level of appropriate antibiotic practices.

In the multivariable model (Table 1), by demographics, the age group 51–89 years was more likely to have high antibiotic practice scores (OR 4.26, 95%CI 2.53–7.16) compared to the youngest age group (18–30 years). Participants of Malay (OR 29.56; 95% CI 15.57–56.09) and Chinese (OR 19.98; 95% CI 9.87–36.51) ethnic groups were more likely to have higher antibiotic practice scores than Indians. Participants who earned an average monthly household income of MYR1001-3000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04–2.50) were more likely to have a higher antibiotic practices score than those earning <MYR1000. Participants with tertiary education attainment showed higher practice scores (OR 1.99; 95%CI 1.02–3.91) than those with education levels of primary school and below. Higher antibiotic knowledge scores (OR 3.94; 95% CI 2.71–5.73) were associated with higher practice scores. The result of mediation analysis showed that age mediates the association between knowledge and antibiotic practices (β = 0.251; 95% CI: (0.131, 0.221).

Discussion

This study describes the knowledge and practices regarding antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among the general Malaysian public. The study identified crucial gaps in knowledge and practices that provide important information for the development of an educational intervention to fill the identified gaps.

Our results show that the majority scored below the mid-point of the knowledge scale, implying a generally low level of knowledge about antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among the study participants. In particular, the study revealed the widespread misperception that antibiotics are effective for treating viral infections. Erroneous beliefs that antibiotics could speed up recovery of coughs and colds were also prevalent. The findings of this study are in concordance with previous small-scale findings in Malaysia that similarly reported that most of the participants viewed antibiotics as effective against viral infections [9, 16, 17]. Such misunderstandings can lead to the suboptimal use of antibiotics. Therefore, it is important to enlighten the public that viral infections do not respond to antibiotic treatment. As many viewed common cold and flu as infections that can be treated with antibiotics, it is equally important to educate the public on the differences between bacterial and viral infections. As evident in this study, knowledge regarding certain diseases that can or cannot be treated with antibiotics was prevalent. Educational interventions were found to have a significant effect in changing knowledge, attitudes and the public’s appropriate use of antibiotics [18], which should be implemented in the Malaysian context.

Studies have shown that awareness about antibiotic resistance and the factors responsible for it remain largely unrecognised at the population level [19, 20]. Likewise, in this study, the terms drug resistance, antimicrobial resistance, and superbugs had not been heard of by the majority of participants. The lay public may not understand the complex mechanisms leading to antibiotic resistance and the consequences of their over or misuse. Evidence indicates that awareness campaigns directed to the general population have led to a substantial reduction in prescribing [20]. To date, there is a lack of public awareness-raising initiatives that focus on sensitising the public on the rational consumption of antibiotics in Malaysia. Henceforth, it is time to implement a campaign to enhance the public’s understanding of the cause of antibiotic resistance and its serious consequences in order to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics.

As for findings of demographic factors influencing knowledge, this study found that having higher education attainment was associated with a higher level of knowledge, which was similarly found in many other studies worldwide [2123]. The gradual increase in the level of knowledge as the educational level increase implies that educational intervention should be targeted at the less educated segment of the population [24]. Ethnic disparities in knowledge were evident. The low level of knowledge among the Chinese participants found in this study warrants further investigation. Higher levels of knowledge among participants from urban and suburban compared to those in rural regions indicates the need for focused and targeted interventions targeting remote and rural areas of Malaysia.

With regard to practices on antibiotic use, the median score of 40 out of a maximum score of 48 implies generally good practices regarding antibiotic usage. Despite these, there are some obvious practice gaps revealed in this study. It is worrisome that some participants obtained antibiotics from pharmacy without a physician’s prescription. Antibiotics dispensed without a prescription are largely the cause of antibiotic misuse and overuse leading to antibiotic resistance [25]. In Malaysia, antibiotics are prescription-only medicines. More stringent inspections by the regulatory authorities are needed to avoid dispensing antibiotics without a prescription. Furthermore, some reported seeking an alternative doctor in obtaining antibiotics if a doctor refused to prescribe antibiotics, which indicates the need for sensitisation and training of physicians to practice rational antibiotic prescribing [26].

It is of utmost importance that the general public should practice rational utilisation of antibiotics as non-adherence to antibiotic consumption may increase the risk of drug resistance. In this study, malpractice such as non-adherence to antibiotic dosage schedules was reported by a considerable proportion of participants. Non-compliance may result in a large portion of leftover antibiotics. It has been reported in the literature that approximately 50% of antibiotics used in self-medication were leftover [27]. In this study, nearly 20% reported ever using leftover antibiotics from previous treatments or sharing leftover antibiotics with others, implying the need to educate the public about understanding the importance of compliance to recommended medication plans and the danger of misuse of leftover antibiotics, including on humans and pets. The public should be enlightened that giving leftover antibiotics to pets can result in antibiotic-resistant infections in pets, which can potentially be passed on to a human.

Other hazardous practices such as throwing away leftover antibiotics and giving leftover antibiotics to pets reported in this study are also of high concern. Likewise, a study conducted in Malaysia reported that the majority of patients discard unused or expired medication in the garbage or flush them down the toilet; only a minority returned expired or unused medication to pharmacies [28]. Improper disposal of unused and expired antibiotics can lead to antibiotics leaching into the water system, causing microbes to mutate into resistant pathogens, promoting antimicrobial resistance, and resulting in environmental hazards and public health risks [29]. A policy aimed at preventing the disposal of antibiotics as household waste should be developed and implemented. Patients often lack knowledge on how to safely dispose of their leftover medications. Physicians or pharmacists should educate patients during prescription about the importance of medication adherence and proper antibiotic disposal during dispensing. Although some hospitals may have their own guidelines [30], there is a lack of national guidance on return unwanted medications. In 2010, the Pharmaceutical Services Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia (MOH) implemented the Return Your Medicines Program encouraging patients to return their unused or excess medicines to the pharmacy counter or medicine return box provided at the pharmacy facilities in the MOH hospitals and health clinics [31]. Patients should be informed and made aware of such guidelines so that they know where to return their expired, unwanted, or unused antibiotics.

By demographics, people with higher education and higher income were generally more knowledgeable about appropriate antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance [32, 33]. Likewise, in this study, higher education and income were associated with better antibiotic usage. There is a gradual increase in the appropriate use of antibiotics as income level increases. This finding can be attributed to the fact that a population with a low socioeconomic status has greater barriers in accessing the health system, which discourages consultations and promotes self-medication [34, 35]. Therefore, education targeting poor households should be implemented to minimise misuse. Both the Chinese and Malay participants exhibited a higher level of appropriate antibiotic use than the Indian participants. These disparities imply that there is a need to understand if the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of antibiotic use are deeply rooted in a sociocultural milieu that varies from one ethnic community to another. However, it should be noted that the number of Chinese and Indian participants in this study is relatively smaller than the Malays. There is a need to further explore this in future research.

An important highlight of this study is the association between knowledge and practices related to antibiotic use. This study adds to the evidence that better knowledge increased the appropriate use of antibiotics. As found in other study, better knowledge was found to be associated with more appropriate use of antibiotics [36]. As antibiotic use is closely related to knowledge, our findings call for communication interventions that target the general public to fill the knowledge gaps identified in this study. The result of mediating effect of age on the association between knowledge and antibiotic practices along with the finding of higher odds of positive antibiotic practices score in older age participants imply that individuals of a younger age should be the target population for antibiotic use interventions. Future research is warranted to determine the effectiveness of antibiotic use intervention as well as to measure its cost-effectiveness to provide insights into effective strategies to promote prudent use of antimicrobials in the country.

This study has some strengths and limitations. First, is the limitation of the utility of telephone interviews, whereby all information obtained from the interview was self-reported and possibly be subjected to social desirability response and self-report bias. A second limitation is related to the CATI method, which only included households with fixed-line telephones; consequently, households without a telephone line were under-represented. Of note, increasing numbers of households no longer use landline phone service and instead rely on mobile phones to stay connected. The third limitation is the use of self-developed scales for the measurement of antibiotic and antibiotic resistance-related knowledge. Only the internal consistency of the scale was examined. Extensive psychometric analyses were not carried out. Therefore, the measurements using these scales should be interpreted cautiously. Lastly, despite this study is a nationwide survey that collected data from all states in Malaysia, some aspects of the cross-sectional design limit the generalization of our findings. The response rate was higher in females compared to males. Further, the income level of the majority of our study respondents was below the average monthly household income of the Malaysian population. Of note, Malaysia’s median income was recorded at RM5,873 in the year 2019 [37]. Hence, our study may have a slight representation of respondents from the lower-income groups. Additionally, the ethnic group distribution in our study is slightly different from the general Malaysian population, of which 67.4% were Malays and Bumiputera, 24.6% Chinese, 7.3% Indians, and 0.7% Others [38]. Despite these limitations, the study was the first nationwide survey in Malaysia to evaluate antibiotic knowledge and practices that was carried out on a wide spectrum of socio-demographics.

Conclusion

This study has documented important gaps in knowledge on antibiotic malpractices among the Malaysian public. This implies that enhancing health literacy associated with antibiotic use, knowledge, and awareness of antimicrobial resistance is a public health priority. Areas of focus that need to be addressed when developing an educational intervention to increase their knowledge and change practices have been identified. Socioeconomic disparities in knowledge and practices exist and addressing these inequalities should be the priority in future interventions. These findings will help health policymakers in Malaysia to implement target-specific education interventions to enhance antimicrobial resistance health literacy and practices.

Supporting information

S1 File. Survey questionnaire.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Proportion of correct responses on knowledge items (N = 864).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Proportion of ever practice (rarely, occasionally, sometimes and often) (N = 864).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) and the Department of Fisheries (DOF), Malaysia and One Health University Network (MyOHUN) for assistance in questionnaire development.

Data Availability

All data files are available in the Kaggle database www.kaggle.com/dataset/5e708107fce45f16f746010f988ed31a54dd4bb2caef436d1bcf83cf73555cdb.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by World Health Organization (WHO) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ferri M, Ranucci E, Romagnoli P, Giaccone V. Antimicrobial resistance: a global emerging threat to public health systems. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2017;57(13):2857–76. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2015.1077192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AK, Wertheim HF, Sumpradit N, et al. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2013;13(12):1057–98. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70318-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bell BG, Schellevis F, Stobberingh E, Goossens H, Pringle M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of antibiotic consumption on antibiotic resistance. BMC infectious diseases. 2014;14(1):1–25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organization. Regional strategy on prevention and containment of antimicrobial resistance, 2010–2015. 2010. [Cited 2021 April 8]. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/205853
  • 5.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic / Antimicrobial Resistance (AR / AMR). 2020. [Cited 2021 July 24]. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/about.html
  • 6.World Health Organization. Raising awareness and education on antimicrobial resistance. 2021. [Cited 2021 April 8]. https://www.who.int/activities/raising-awareness-and-educating-on-antimicrobial-resistance
  • 7.Davey P, Pagliari C, Hayes A. The patient’s role in the spread and control of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2002;8:43–68. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.8.s.2.6.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Spellberg B, Bartlett JG, Gilbert DN. The future of antibiotics and resistance. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(4):299–302. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1215093 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Irawati L, Alrasheedy AA, Hassali MA, Saleem F. Low-income community knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in Jelutong District, Penang, Malaysia: a qualitative study. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Islahudin F, Tamezi AM, Shah NM. Knowledge, attitudes and practices about antibiotic use among the general public in Malaysia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2014;45(6):1474. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Qamar M, Sheikh Abdullah NH, Khan J, Mahmud A, Ahmad A. Knowledge and attitude towards antibiotic usage among general public in Shah Alam, Malaysia. UK J Pharm Biosci. 2014;2(6):60–6. doi: 10.20510/ukjpb/2/i6/91175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fowler FJ Jr, Brenner PS, Buskirk TD, Roman A. Telephone health survey estimates: Effects of nonresponse and sample limitations. Health Serv Res. 2019; 54(3):700–6. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Prescribing and Use. 2021. [Cited 2021 September 2]. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/index.html
  • 14.World Health Organization. Antibiotic Resistance. 2020. [Cited 2021 September 2]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antibiotic-resistance
  • 15.MacCallum RC, Zhang S, Preacher KJ, Rucker DD. On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):19. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chan GC, Tang SF. Parental knowledge, attitudes and antibiotic use for acute upper respiratory tract infection in children attending a primary healthcare clinic in Malaysia. Singap Med J. 2006;47(4):266–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Oh AL, Hassali MA, Al-Haddad MS, Sulaiman SA, Shafie AA, Awaisu A. Public knowledge and attitudes towards antibiotic usage: a cross-sectional study among the general public in the state of Penang, Malaysia. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011;5(5):338–47. doi: 10.3855/jidc.1502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Price L, Gozdzielewska L, Young M, Smith F, MacDonald J, McParland J, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve the public’s antimicrobial resistance awareness and behaviours associated with prudent use of antimicrobials: a systematic review. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 2018;73(6):1464–78. doi: 10.1093/jac/dky076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Allcock S, Young EH, Holmes M, Gurdasani D, Dougan G, Sandhu MS, et al. Antimicrobial resistance in human populations: challenges and opportunities. Global health, epidemiology and genomics. 2017;2. doi: 10.1017/gheg.2017.4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee CR, Lee JH, Kang LW, Jeong BC, Lee SH. Educational effectiveness, target, and content for prudent antibiotic use. BioMed research international. 2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/214021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Waaseth M, Adan A, Røen IL, Eriksen K, Stanojevic T, Halvorsen KH, et al. Knowledge of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance among Norwegian pharmacy customers–a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tsuzuki S, Fujitsuka N, Horiuchi K, Ijichi S, Gu Y, Fujitomo Y, et al. Factors associated with sufficient knowledge of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in the Japanese general population. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Abu Taha A, Abu‐Zaydeh AH, Ardah RA, Al‐Jabi SW, Sweileh WM, Awang R, et al. Public knowledge and attitudes regarding the use of antibiotics and resistance: findings from a cross‐sectional study among Palestinian adults. Zoonoses and public health. 2016;63(6):449–57. doi: 10.1111/zph.12249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.World Health Organization. Antibiotic Resistance: Multi-Country Awareness Survey. 2015. [Cited 2021 April 9]. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/194460/97892415;jsessionid=F7AA11AB671CF880F6D90DF666BBA9B5?sequence=1
  • 25.Llor C, Bjerrum L. Antimicrobial resistance: risk associated with antibiotic overuse and initiatives to reduce the problem. Therapeutic advances in drug safety. 2014;5(6):229–41. doi: 10.1177/2042098614554919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Basu S, Garg S. Antibiotic prescribing behavior among physicians: ethical challenges in resource-poor settings. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine. 2018;11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ocan M, Obuku EA, Bwanga F, Akena D, Richard S, Ogwal-Okeng J, et al. Household antimicrobial self-medication: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the burden, risk factors and outcomes in developing countries. BMC public health. 2015;15(1):1–1. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2109-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Azmi Hassali M, Shakeel S. Unused and Expired Medications Disposal Practices among the General Public in Selangor, Malaysia. Pharmacy. 2020. Dec;8(4):196 doi: 10.3390/pharmacy8040196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Anwar M, Iqbal Q, Saleem F. Improper disposal of unused antibiotics: an often overlooked driver of antimicrobial resistance. Expert review of anti-infective therapy. 2020;18(8):697–9. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1754797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sim DSM, Lee MHG, Tan KM, Lai PSM, Sulaiman CZ. Guidelines on the proper disposal of unused medications. 2017. [Cited 2021 September 5]. https://www.um.edu.my/UMique/Sustainability%40UM/UM-Eco-Campus%20Guidelines/02c-guidelines-on-the-proper-disposal-of-unused-medications.pdf
  • 31.Pharmaceutical Services Divisopm Ministry of Health. Return Your Medicines Program.2013. [Cited 2021 September 5]. https://www.pharmacy.gov.my/v2/en/content/return-your-medicines-program.html
  • 32.Yusef D, Babaa AI, Bashaireh AZ, Al-Bawayeh HH, Al-Rijjal K, Nedal M, et al. Knowledge, practices & attitude toward antibiotics use and bacterial resistance in Jordan: A cross-sectional study. Infection, disease & health. 2018;23(1):33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.idh.2017.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pan DS, Huang JH, Lee MH, Yu Y, Mark I, Chen C, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards antibiotic use in upper respiratory tract infections among patients seeking primary health care in Singapore. BMC family practice. 2016;17(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0547-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Higuita-Gutiérrez LF, Villamil GE, Quiceno JN. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding antibiotic use and resistance among medical students in Colombia: a cross-sectional descriptive study. BMC public health. 2020;20(1):1–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Planta MB. The role of poverty in antimicrobial resistance. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. 2007;20(6):533–9. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2007.06.070019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nepal A, Hendrie D, Robinson S, Selvey LA. Knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to antibiotic use among community members of the Rupandehi District in Nepal. BMC public health. 2019;19(1):1–2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Department of Statistics Malaysia. Household Income & Basic Amenities Survey Report 2019. 2019. [cited 2021 July 24]. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=120&bul_id=TU00TmRhQ1N5TUxHVWN0T2VjbXJYZz09&menu_id=amVoWU54UTl0a21NWmdhMjFMMWcyZz09
  • 38.Department of Statistics Malaysia. Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristic Report 2010. 2011. [cited 2021 July 24]. https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/ctheme&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09&bul_id=MDMxdHZjWTk1SjFzTzNkRXYzcVZjdz09

Decision Letter 0

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

16 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-20468

Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics: findings from a nationwide survey in Malaysia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Kindly revise your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript will be reviewed again. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated. 

3. Please amend your current ethics statement to address the following concerns:  

a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? 

b) As consent was verbal, please explain i)  how you documented participant consent, and ii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1 and 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors

Thank you for subnmitting your manuscript. Kindly carry out the revisions required by the reviewers and resubmit your manuscript for a second round of review.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The actual questionnaire is not available.

2. This is a newly developed questionnaire but the survey questions were only partially validated. I suggest the authors assess the validity and reliability of the questionnaire by test-retest assessment, inter-rater analysis, using principal component analysis, then check the internal consistency of questions loading onto the same factor.

3. Please state the supporting resources provided by the WHO.

4. "Sg Buloh Hopsital" was misspelled. It should be "Sg. Buloh Hospital".

5. The introductory sentence in the Abstract is misleading, readers may think that this study is assessing the threat of antimicrobial resistance in Malaysia.

6. In the "Introduction" section, reference 5 (2013) is out of date. Please provide updated information.

7. In the "Instruments" section, individuals may interpret “rarely”, “occasionally”, “sometimes”, “often” differently. The scales between “rarely”, “occasionally”, “sometimes”, “often” are not linear. How did the researchers address this inter-rater or “inter-respondent” difference?

8. There are 5 response options in the practices of antibiotic use questions; namely, never, rarely, occasionally, sometimes, and often. How are the 4 score options of 0, 1, 2, and 3 awarded to 5 response options?

9. The "Statistical analyses" section is not clear. The authors may describe clearly how the respondents were divided into 2 groups for comparisons.

10. In 2019, the average monthly household income in Malaysia is RM 7,901. About 75% of the respondents in the study fall under the bottom 20% of the classification of household income of the Malaysian community. Would the respondents be representative of a general Malaysian population?

11. The racial distributions in Malaysia are Malays and indigenous peoples 62%, Chinese 20.6%, and Indian 6.2%. How well is the racial distribution of Malaysia reflected in the racial distribution of the respondents in this survey?

12. The official retirement age in Malaysia is 60 years. Is there any particular reason that the age of the respondents was categorized as 18-30, 31-50, and 51-89?

13. What is the rationale for categorizing "students", "retired", "unemployed" as a group while they have a diverse age range, income, and experience?

14. Table 1, last section, the label for data "154 (37.4) p<0.001 Reference" is missing.. Table 1, last section, the label for data "154 (37.4) p<0.001 Reference" seems missing.

15. In the "Discussion" section, the authors state that better knowledge was found to be associated with more appropriate use of antibiotics. There seems to be a mismatch between the knowledge scores and the practice scores especially among the Indian race. The Indians who had a reasonable score (47% attaining a knowledge score range of 23-50) had very low practice scores (92% with a scores range of 17-39). Does it imply that an arbitrary cut-off point at the median score does not reflect the true underlying picture? Or Are the knowledge questions truly measure what they are supposed to measure?

16. Also, different individuals have different perceptions on the terms rarely, occasionally, sometimes, and often. The “distance” or “scales” between these items are very arbitrary and not constant. Would the authors discuss quantifying these terms with a continuous number?

17. The resolution of Figure 1 and Figure 2 is poor.

18. There are some minor typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for giving me the chance to review this ms. Here are my comments:

1. authors have noted that - This study has documented important gaps in knowledge on antibiotic malpractices among

the Malaysian public - in my opinion it is not new! even the refs 9-13 have indicated that others have done such studies.

2. The Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive

Medicine should put its energy, money, time and effort to study the approach to improve and coming out with evidence-based interventions e.g. cost-effective interventions. The consequences and reasons for misuse are well documented, including in LMICs. So, what is the benefit of studying again and again ? We should find ways to overcoming these problems.

3. Methods - are poorly written and structured. study design? sample size? sampling from the 16 areas? Malaysian is a multiracial society with different culture, belief and socio-economic status - are these factors been taken into consideration during sampling? analysis? any confounders?

4. How effective is tel interview in Malaysia in getting a comprehensive views of the respondents?

5. Inclusion criteria - e.g. had heard - if just heard but have not used before, do you think there will be a different in their responses, understanding, knowledge and practice?

6. Tools and items - source of these items and questions? Your own ideas? or from the literature?

7. Translations - the process of translations? validations? lack of explanation, vague

8. Interviewers - was the interrater reliability measured? how did you reduce potential bias?

9. Cronbach's alpha - move to instrument development section

10. Analysis section - lack of information - univariate analysis? descriptive stats? how was the factors decided into the model, i.e. multivariate analysis?

11. all % must be supplied with n i.e. (n, %)

12. Your age category - 51-89 - in this category - how do you explain and separate the elderly population's knowledge and practice?

13. Discussion - what does the study add? what are the study findings implication?

14. Figures 1 and 2 are blur and cannot be read

15.This ms is better to be submitted in a local journal.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: YokeLin LO

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0258698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258698.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Jul 2021

We have addressed the reviewers’ comments and upload the file labeled 'Response to Reviewers' and manuscript with track changes in the submission.

Attachment

Submitted filename: #Response to reviewers 29July2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

1 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-20468R1

Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics: findings from a nationwide survey in Malaysia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Dear authors

The reviewers have recommended some further clarifications about your manuscript. You are invited to carry out these changes. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for taking seriously the reviewers' comments and suggestions. The revised ms has improved its quality.

Reviewer #3: Title: Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics findings from a nationwide survey in Malaysia

I would like to thank the Editor for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Overall, it is a well written manuscript and addresses an important area of medicine use. My specific comments are mentioned below:

Title: I suggest adding ‘general public’ in the title

Abstract:

Line 21, Misuse of antibiotic………, is not correct. There are other studies (https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-016-1530-2). Hence I suggest authors to modify this sentence.

Line 32, ‘low awareness’ what do authors mean by this? These should be a cutoff score mentioned to categorize as ‘low’, ‘average’, ‘high etc.’.

Introduction:

This section is generally well written. However, it lacks thorough literature review. I suggest authors to present more literature from Malaysia and from other countries.

A thorough justification for the research is lacking. Authors should describe similar studies from Malaysia and justify why this research was needed.

This section should add information for international readers. What it adds to international readers?

Line 61-63 shows similarity with https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ipid/2018/8492740/?

I suggest authors to run similarity check and modify it.

Materials and methods:

The study timeline should be mentioned. Was it conducted during COVID 19 pandemic? Was there any stratification for samples? How do we ensure the samples are equally distributed in terms of gender, education, income, ethnicity, geographic distribution etc. I could see the females are much more than males? Can this influence the study findings? Do the selected samples reflect Malaysian population nationwide? If not this should be mentioned as a study limitation.

Instruments

Line 109, the knowledge scores should be categorized as low, average, and high. What is the cutoff score to category as ‘high’? The same has to be done for practice scores also. It would be more logical to divide the scores as low, average and high.

Line 117-119 is not enough. A more detailed description on questionnaire development should be added. Did authors obtain some information from published literature? In that case those should be cited.

Line 92-96, shows similarity with https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-016-3409-y

Authors copied verbatim and hence needs to be edited.

Results:

Line 181, How did authors arrive at ‘high scores’ ? How were the scores categorized?

Line 191, On what basis did authors perform mean and median scores? Did authors perform a normality check? If yes, mention the name of the test with p value in the methodology section.

Line 194-195, this information should be mentioned in the methodology and references should be provided for median split

Line 217, was the normal distribution performed for practice scores?

Discussion:

This section is well written. It can be further improvised by discussing more on policy recommendations based on the research findings.

Lines 241- 255. There is nothing new in this part. Antibiotics in viral infections is a well-known fact.

Line 254, …..public’s antibiotic stewardship behavior’ needs amendment. Try to rephrase with more suitable words.

Limitations:

Line 340, Strengths and limitations can be in two different paragraphs.

Line 356, I suggest authors to perform thorough literature review and see whether their claim is right.

Figure 1, I had problem in viewing the Figure 1. The font size is too small. I suggest authors to check this.

Reviewer #4: Authors have article on Knowledge about antibiotic use and misuse using telephonic interviewing Malaysia . Due to widespread antibiotic misuse antibiotic resistance is increasing & multi drug resistant pathogen are common .

Topic is very relevant and worth studying and results show lack knowledge among low socioeconomic strata & educational level as reason for decreased awareness.

Study was done during COVID Pandemic whether Pandemic has affected survey results? Any specific points of lockdown related rise in misuse=se & stress related response is not clear. This can be clarified.

Telephonic survey results could be inferior to personal questionnaire based study

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Mukhyaprana Manuru Prabhu

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Oct 20;16(10):e0258698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258698.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Sep 2021

We have further made all changes as suggested and enclosed the detail in tracked and also attached the specific reviewer responses in the submission.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

Decision Letter 2

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

4 Oct 2021

Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics: findings from a nationwide survey of the general public in Malaysia

PONE-D-21-20468R2

Dear Dr. Wong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: My previous comments have been addressed adequately by the authors. The revised manuscript reads well.

Reviewer #4: Article can be accepted

Revi8ewer comments have be addressed

Limitations of telephonic survey commented could have been addressed in more systematic way

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

11 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-20468R2

Factors influencing inappropriate use of antibiotics: findings from a nationwide survey of the general public in Malaysia

Dear Dr. Wong:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Pathiyil Ravi Shankar

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Survey questionnaire.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. Proportion of correct responses on knowledge items (N = 864).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Proportion of ever practice (rarely, occasionally, sometimes and often) (N = 864).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: #Response to reviewers 29July2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers comments.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available in the Kaggle database www.kaggle.com/dataset/5e708107fce45f16f746010f988ed31a54dd4bb2caef436d1bcf83cf73555cdb.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES