Development of the antimicrobial resistance burden score through a modified eDelphi

Current antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance relies on fragmented indicators that fail to capture institutional AMR burden complexity. To develop the AMR Burden Score, a three-round modified eDelphi study engaged interdisciplinary experts (Round 1: n = 17, Rounds 2 and 3: n = 7), including clinicians, microbiologists, pharmacists, health economists, and public health specialists. The AMR Burden Score comprises six weighted domains: Resistance (25%), Effectiveness (30%), Monitoring (30%), Adoption (5%), Processes (5%), and Systems (5%). Strong consensus emerged for core indicators, including incidence of resistant infections (unanimous Round 3 agreement, median 8.0), pathogen-specific resistance rates (median 7.0), and staff training programmes (median 8.0). The AMR Burden Score provides a structured framework for institutional AMR assessment, though implementation requires context-specific adaptation and further validation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
Published
2026-03-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s44259-026-00184-w
Primary Topic
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of the antimicrobial resistance burden score through a modified eDelphi

Bryony Dean Franklin, William J. Waldock, F. L. Davies, César de la Fuente et al.
npj Antimicrobials and Resistance
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
article

Development of the antimicrobial resistance burden score through a modified eDelphi

Bryony Dean Franklin, William J. Waldock, F. L. Davies, César de la Fuente, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Mark Gilchrist
article en

Abstract

Current antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance relies on fragmented indicators that fail to capture institutional AMR burden complexity. To develop the AMR Burden Score, a three-round modified eDelphi study engaged interdisciplinary experts (Round 1: n = 17, Rounds 2 and 3: n = 7), including clinicians, microbiologists, pharmacists, health economists, and public health specialists. The AMR Burden Score comprises six weighted domains: Resistance (25%), Effectiveness (30%), Monitoring (30%), Adoption (5%), Processes (5%), and Systems (5%). Strong consensus emerged for core indicators, including incidence of resistant infections (unanimous Round 3 agreement, median 8.0), pathogen-specific resistance rates (median 7.0), and staff training programmes (median 8.0). The AMR Burden Score provides a structured framework for institutional AMR assessment, though implementation requires context-specific adaptation and further validation.

npj Antimicrobials and ResistanceVol. 4(1)
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (GB), Translational Therapeutics (United States) (US), The London College (GB), University College London (GB), Imperial College London (GB), University of Pennsylvania (US), National Patient Safety Foundation (US)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care
Openalex Percentile: Top 32%
Antibiotic Use and Resistance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.