Evidence Hub

Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Implications for Clinical Practice

Khanfar BM, Ali R

Cureus, 2026

Abstract

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care is a major global problem, as primary care represents the first point of contact between the patient and a health system, contributing to health system burden and resulting in antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this study is to systematically review evidence on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 recommendations, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies that were published in the last five years, and 12 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. Inappropriate antibiotic prescription was highly prevalent across various income settings, particularly for respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis. Broad-spectrum antibiotics, especially amoxicillin-clavulanate, were frequently inappropriately prescribed. Factors affecting inappropriate prescribing were a combination of patient, provider, and system-level determinants. Multifaceted strategies should be considered to help improve inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free