Effectiveness of work-based educational interventions for antimicrobial stewardship: a systematic review

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water: A systematic review

Poor or inequitable access to oral health care is commonly reported in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Although the severity of these problems varies, a lack of supply of dentists and their uneven distribution are important factors. Delegating care to dental auxiliaries could ease this problem, extend services to where they are unavailable and liberate time for dentists to do more complex work. Before such an approach can be advocated, it is important to know the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists. To assess the effectiveness, costs and cost effectiveness of dental auxiliaries in providing care traditionally provided by dentists. We searched the following electronic databases from their inception dates up to November 2013: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. We also undertook a grey literature search and searched the reference list of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in undertaking clinical tasks traditionally performed by a dentist. Three review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study and two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence from the included studies, according to The Cochrane Collaboration's procedures. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we gave a narrative description of the results. We identified five studies (one cluster RCT, three RCTs and one NRCT), evaluating the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in providing dental care traditionally provided by dentists, eligible for inclusion in this review. The included studies, which involved 13 dental auxiliaries, six dentists, and more than 1156 participants, evaluated two clinical tasks/techniques: placement of preventive resin fissure sealants and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Two studies were conducted in the US, and one each in Canada, Gambia and Singapore.Of the four studies evaluating effectiveness in placing preventive resin fissure sealants, three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that fissure sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than one placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist). The same study reported that the net reduction after 48 months in the number teeth exhibiting caries (dental decay) was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (3 with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001).One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. The one study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.All studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence was very low, as assessed using the GRADE approach. In addition, four of the included studies were more than 20 years old; the materials used and the techniques assessed were out of date. We found no eligible studies comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists in the diagnosis of oral diseases and conditions, in delivering oral health education and other aspects of health promotion, or studies assessing participants' perspectives including the acceptability of care received. None of the included studies reported adverse effects. In addition, we found no studies comparing the costs and cost-effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists, their impact on access and equity of access to care that met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. We only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.

The emigration of skilled professionals from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to high-income countries (HICs) is a general phenomenon but poses particular challenges in health care, where it contributes to human resource shortages in the health systems of poorer countries. However, little is known about the effects of strategies to help regulate this movement. To assess the effects of policy interventions to regulate emigration of health professionals from LMICs. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 15 March 2011), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (searched 2 March 2011), MEDLINE (searched 5 March 2011), EMBASE (searched 2 March 2011), CINAHL (searched 5 March 2011), LILACS (searched 7 March 2011), WHOLIS (searched 20 March 2011), SocINDEX (searched 11 March 2011), EconLit (searched 8 March 2011), Science and Social Science Citation Index (searched 8 March 2011), NLM Gateway (searched 31 March 2011) and ERIC (searched March 3 2011). We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies and experts on the field, and reviewed relevant websites. Randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCT), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies assessing any intervention inthe source, the recipient or both countries that could have an impact on the number of professionals that emigrate from a LMIC. Health professionals, such as physicians, dentists, nurses or midwives, should be nationals of a LMIC whose graduate training was in a LMIC. One review author extracted data onto a standard form and a second review author checked data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias. Only one study was included. This time series study assessed the migration of Philippine nurses to the United States of America (USA) from 1954 to 1990. We re-analysed it as an interrupted time series study. The intervention was a modification of migratory law in the US, called the 'Act of October 1965', which decreased the restrictions on Eastern hemisphere immigrants to the USA. The analysis showed a significant immediate increase of 807.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 480.9 to 1134.3) in the number of nurses migrating to the USA annually after the intervention. This represents a relative increase of5000% over the underlying pre-intervention trend. There were no significant differences in the slopes of the underlying trends for the number of nurses migrating between the pre- and postintervention periods. There is an important gap in knowledge about the effectiveness of policy interventions in either HICs or LMICs that could regulate positively the movement of health professionals from LMICs. The only evidence found was from an intervention in a HIC that increased the movement of health professionals from a LMIC.New initiatives to improve records on the migration of health professionals from LMICs should be implemented, as a prerequisite to conducting more rigorous research in the field. This research should focus on whether the range of interventions outlined in the literature could be effective in retaining health professionals in LMICs. Such interventions include financial rewards, career development and continuing education, improving hospital infrastructure, resource availability, better hospital management and improved recognition of health professionals.

Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

Up to 50% of antibiotic usage in hospitals is inappropriate. In hospitals infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with higher mortality, morbidity and prolonged hospital stay compared with infections caused by antibiotic-susceptible bacteria. Clostridium difficile associated diarrhoea (CDAD) is a hospital acquired infection that is caused by antibiotic prescribing. To estimate the effectiveness of professional interventions that alone, or in combination, are effective in promoting prudent antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients, to evaluate the impact of these interventions on reducing the incidence of antimicrobial resistant pathogens or CDAD and their impact on clinical outcome. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) specialized register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE from 1980 to November 2003. Additional studies were obtained from the bibliographies of retrieved articles We included all randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCT/CCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by EPOC. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality. Sixty six studies were included and 51 (77%) showed a significant improvement in at least one outcome. Six interventions only aimed to increase treatment, 57 interventions aimed to decrease treatment and three interventions aimed to both increase and decrease treatment. The intervention target was the decision to prescribe antibiotics (one study), timing of first dose (six studies), the regimen (drug, dosing interval etc, 61 studies) or the duration of treatment (10 studies); 12 studies had more than one target. Of the six interventions that aimed to increase treatment, five reported a significant improvement in drug outcomes and one a significant improvement in clinical outcome. Of the 60 interventions that aimed to decrease treatment 47 reported drug outcomes of which 38 (81%) significantly improved, 16 reported microbiological outcomes of which 12 (75%) significantly improved and nine reported clinical outcomes of which two (22%) significantly deteriorated and 3 (33%) significantly improved. Five studies aimed to reduce CDAD. Three showed a significant reduction in CDAD. Due to differences in study design and duration of follow up it was only possible to perform meta-regression on a few studies. The results show that interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients are successful, and can reduce antimicrobial resistance or hospital acquired infections.

Patients with asthma commonly present to emergency departments (ED) with exacerbations. Asthma guidelines recommend close follow-up with a primary care provider (PCP) after ED discharge; however, this linkage is often delayed or absent. The objective of this study was to assess whether ED-directed educational interventions improve office follow-up with PCPs after ED discharge for acute asthma. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (1946 to 2014). Randomized controlled clinical trials examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase office follow-up with a PCP were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; fidelity of the interventions was assessed using the Treatment Fidelity Assessment Grid. Using study data, risk ratios (RRs),and the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. From 427 potentially relevant studies, five (n=825) were included. The overall risk of bias was unclear, and the description of intervention fidelity varied across the studies. Educational interventions targeting either patients or PCPs led to a greater likelihood of having primary care follow-up after ED discharge (RR=1.6; 95% CI=1.31 to 1.87; I(2) =0%). The number needed to treat for benefit was six (95% CI=4 to 11). No significant benefit was observed in reductions of relapses (RR=1.3; 95% CI=0.82 to 1.98; I(2) =23%) and admissions (RR=0.51; 95% CI=0.24 to 1.06; I(2) =0%). Due to the small number of studies for each comparison, publication bias was not formally assessed. ED-directed educational interventions targeting either patients or providers increase the chance of having office follow-up visits with PCPs after asthma exacerbations. Their impact on health-related outcomes (e.g., relapse and admissions) remains unclear.

Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recognition of its impact and the importance of improving outcomes for individuals affected. Research in the area to date has focused mainly on descriptive epidemiology and impact assessment. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity. To determine the effectiveness of health-service or patient-oriented interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and seven other databases to 28 September 2015. We also searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field for completed or ongoing studies. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. This includes studies where participants can have combinations of any condition or have combinations of pre-specified common conditions (comorbidity), for example, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The comparison was usual care as delivered in that setting. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality, and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of the results where possible and carried out a narrative synthesis for the remainder of the results. We present the results in a 'Summary of findings' table and tabular format to show effect sizes across all outcome types. We identified 17 RCTs examining a range of complex interventions for people with multimorbidity. Nine studies focused on defined comorbid conditions with an emphasis on depression, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The remaining studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older people. In 11 studies, the predominant intervention element was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In six studies, the interventions were predominantly patient-oriented, for example, educational or self-management support-type interventions delivered directly to participants. Overall our confidence in the results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from low to high certainty. There was little or no difference in clinical outcomes (based on moderate certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved (based on high certainty evidence) and there were modest reductions in mean depression scores for the comorbidity studies that targeted participants with depression (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.63 to -0.2). There was probably a small improvement in patient-reported outcomes (moderate certainty evidence). The intervention may make little or no difference to health service use (low certainty evidence), may slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty evidence), probably slightly improves patient-related health behaviours (moderate certainty evidence), and probably improves provider behaviour in terms of prescribing behaviour and quality of care (moderate certainty evidence). Cost data were limited. This review identifies the emerging evidence to support policy for the management of people with multimorbidity and common comorbidities in primary care and community settings. There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity in general due to the relatively small number of RCTs conducted in this area to date, with mixed findings overall. It is possible that the findings may change with the inclusion of large ongoing well-organised trials in future updates. The results suggest an improvement in health outcomes if interventions can be targeted at risk factors such as depression in people with co-morbidity.

Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.

We are uncertain of the effects of information or education interventions given to adult ICU patients and their carers, as the evidence in all cases was of very low certainty, and our confidence in the evidence was limited. Ongoing studies may contribute more data and introduce more certainty when incorporated into future updates of the review.

Urinary incontinence is a common health problem that carries with it a significant burden. Nearly twice as many men suffer from this problem than women, and studies have demonstrated that help-seeking behavior is more challenging for men. This information sheet is based on a systematic review and focuses on the best-available evidence regarding educational interventions to raise men's awareness of bladder and bowel health. It also provides recommendations for practice.

Unintended pregnancy is associated with national socioeconomic development and gender inequality. In addition to contraception, educational interventions that promote family planning and address gender dynamics are considered important in preventing unintended pregnancy. While the importance of encouraging men's participation in family planning has been advocated, most studies have focused on the application of interventions to women or populations in high-income countries only. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effects of educational interventions on men in low- and middle-income countries in terms of knowledge, attitudes, practices, and gender dynamics. Three electronic databases (CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published from January 1980 to October 2022. Keywords such as "men/husband," "family planning," "contraception," and "education" were combined to identify studies. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. The quality of evidence was evaluated according to the GRADE Handbook. The database search identified 16,086 articles, of which 4 cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 RCT were ultimately included. Each of them was conducted in four different countries: Malawi, Guatemala, Tanzania, and India. Changes in knowledge, attitude, family planning, and gender dynamics were the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The five selected articles exhibited an effect on ≥1 indicator for each outcome. However, the quality of evidence was determined to be low or very low owing to the risk of bias, heterogeneity, and imprecision. Determining the effectiveness of educational interventions in family planning for men in low- and middle-income countries requires additional high-quality intervention studies. As family planning is influenced by various background factors, it is important to develop appropriate interventions for each context and define relevant indicators that can be compared across contexts.

The Nursing led inpatient Unit (NLU) is one of a range of services that have been considered in order to manage more successfully the transition between hospital and home for patients with extended recovery times. To determine whether nursing-led inpatient units are effective in preparing patients for discharge from hospital compared to usual inpatient care. We searched The Cochrane Library, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, BNI and HMIC databases. Citation searches were undertaken on the science and social science citation indices. Authors were contacted to identify additional data. Controlled trials and interrupted time series designs that compared the NLU to usual inpatient care managed by doctors. Patients over 18 years of age following an acute hospital admission for a physical health condition. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Ten random or quasi-random controlled trials reported on a total of 1896 patients. There was no statistically significant effect on inpatient mortality ( OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.16) or mortality to longest follow up (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29) but higher qaulity studies showed a larger non-significant increase in inpatient mortality (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.68). Discharge to institutional care was reduced for the NLU (OR 0.44 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89) and functional status at discharge increased (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.54) but there was a near significant increase in inpatient stay (WMD 5.13 days 95% CI -0.5 days to 10.76 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80). One study compared a NLU for the chronically critically ill with ICU care. Mortality (OR 0.62 95% CI 0.35 to 1.10) and length of inpatient stay differ did not differ (WMD 2 days, 95% CI 10.96 to -6.96 days). Early readmissions were reduced (OR 0.33 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94). Costs of care on the NLU were higher for UK studies but lower for US based studies. There is some evidence that patients discharged from a NLU are better prepared for discharge but it is unclear if this is simply a product of an increased length of inpatient stay. No statistically significant adverse effects were noted but the possibility of increased early mortality cannot be discounted. More research is needed.

Owing to a paucity of eligible trials, as well as diversity in the intervention type, comorbidities and the outcome measures reported, we were unable to provide a robust synthesis of data. Pulmonary rehabilitation or multicomponent interventions may improve quality of life and functional status (6MWD), but the evidence is too limited to draw a robust conclusion. The key take-home message from this review is the lack of data from RCTs on treatments for people living with COPD and comorbidities. Given the variation in number and type of comorbidity(s) an individual may have, and severity of COPD, larger studies reporting individual patient data are required to determine these effects.

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Medline, Ovid; Embase, CINAHL, EBSCO, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISIWeb of Science Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. Data were abstracted by two independent review authors using a data extraction form. The following factors were examined as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons; format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient and risk of bias within the trial itself. Risk of bias was assessed using EPOC criteria. The degree of confidence in the estimate of effect across studies was assessed using the GRADE approach. All outcomes were expressed as compliance with desired practice and both professional and patient outcomes were assessed, though separately. One hundred and forty studies were included. Using 70 of these 108 comparisons were made. After excluding studies at high risk of bias there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies with dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%). For studies with continuous outcomes the weighted median adjusted percentage change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3%to 28.9%). For patient outcomes the weighted median RD was 0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) in studies reporting dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for studies with continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. Audit and feedback generally lead to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.

&lt;p&gt;Objective:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To determine whether implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions improve management of bacteriuria in hospitalized adults.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Data Sources:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Clinical Trials Registries via Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through May 2021. Reference lists of included studies were searched, and Scopus was used to retrieve articles that cited included references.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Study Selection and Data Extraction:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Randomized and nonrandomized trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, and repeated measures studies evaluating AMS interventions for hospitalized adult inpatients with bacteriuria were included. Risk of bias was assessed independently by 3 team members and compared. Results were summarized descriptively.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Data Synthesis:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The search yielded 5509 articles, of which 13 met inclusion criteria. Most common interventions included education (N = 8) and audit and feedback (N = 5) alone or in combination with other interventions. Where assessed, resource and antimicrobial use primarily decreased and appropriateness of antimicrobial use improved; however, impact on guideline adherence was variable. All studies were rated as having unclear or serious risk of bias. This review summarizes and assesses the quality of evidence for AMS interventions to improve the management of bacteriuria. Results provide guidance to both AMS teams and researchers aiming to develop and/or evaluate AMS interventions for management of bacteriuria.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This review demonstrated benefit of AMS interventions on management of bacteriuria. However, most studies had some risk of bias, and an overall effect across studies is unclear due to heterogeneity in outcome measures. &lt;/p&gt;