Cited by 3Antibiotic Use and ResistanceInfection Control in HealthcareHealth Policy Implementation Science

Promoting nurse participation in hospital antimicrobial stewardship: A realist review

Luo, Yunting, He, Lingxiao, Li, Wenyan, Zhao, Jing, Deng, Rong, Zong, Zhiyong·2025·International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract

Background Antimicrobial stewardship is a collaborative intervention strategy aimed at promoting the selection of optimal antimicrobial regimens to improve and measure the appropriate use of antimicrobials, thereby fostering rational use of these agents, enhancing patient outcomes effectively, and curbing the wide dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. Recently, nurses' pivotal contribution in multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship teams is increasingly recognized. However, the contexts and mechanisms able to facilitate nurses' participation in the complex dynamics of antimicrobial stewardship remain unclear. Objective This review aims to identify and analyze the mechanisms, contextual factors, and outcomes that promote nurses' participation in antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Methods This study adheres to the methods of realist review based on the Normalization Process Theory. Preliminary programme theories were generated through an extensive literature review and thematic analysis. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wangfang databases. The final Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations were determined to validate the final programme theory. Results A total of 5635 articles were retrieved; ultimately, 35 studies were included for a comprehensive analysis. The review identified five key configurations clarifying the interactions among contextual factors, mechanisms, and outcomes: (1) Contextual factors: multidisciplinary team collaboration and hospital organizational support. (2) Strategies and mechanisms: articulating nurses' contributions and impact (Coherence-Building), promoting awareness and positive perceptions (Cognitive Participation), enhancing nurses' competencies (Collective Action), fostering collaborative and motivating frameworks, and emphasizing continuous quality improvement (Reflexive Monitoring). (3) Outcomes: improvements in patient outcomes (e.g., faster antibiotic initiation, shorter hospital stays, and lower mortality) and staff outcomes (e.g., enhanced knowledge, confidence, and adherence to antimicrobial stewardship practices). Conclusion This realist review has developed a theoretical framework to promote nurses' participation in antimicrobial stewardship practices. This framework emphasizes the complex dynamic mechanisms that facilitate or hinder nurses' involvement in antimicrobial stewardship and aims to implement evidence-based strategies to encourage nurses' participation in antimicrobial stewardship practices. This, in turn, is expected to enhance the effectiveness of hospital antimicrobial stewardship initiatives and improve the quality of patient care within the hospital environment. Significance This realist review highlights that, at both individual and organizational levels, supporting nurses' professional roles and responsibilities through targeted education, expanded prescribing authority, collaborative frameworks, and continuous quality improvement empowers nurses to integrate antimicrobial stewardship into their daily practice. By delineating the relevant mechanisms, contextual factors, and outcomes, the findings inform the design of complex interventions to sustain nurses' engagement in hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs, and advance the evolution of advanced nursing practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105142

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Luo, Y., He, L., Li, W., Zhao, J., Deng, R., & Zong, Z.
Affiliations
Sichuan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Deng, Rong
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
169
Pages
105142
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411146250
Cited by
1
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
antimicrobial stewardship, multidisciplinary team collaboration, organizational support, Normalization Process Theory, nursing competencies, continuous quality improvement, antimicrobial resistance, patient outcomes, nursing education, hospital culture, patient safety, length of hospital stay, mortality reduction, antibiotic prescribing, nosocomial infections
MeSH terms
Antimicrobial Stewardship, Humans, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Nurse's Role

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review