Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-23T15:43:54.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The impact of socioeconomic status on the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in high-income nations: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2025

Ethan Levitch*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland Medical School, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Levi Matthews
Affiliation:
University of Queensland Medical School, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Eugene Choi
Affiliation:
University of Queensland Medical School, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Sagaana Thushiyenthan
Affiliation:
University of Queensland Medical School, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Lisa Hall
Affiliation:
The School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Jake Tickner
Affiliation:
UQ Centre for Clinical Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Amalie Dyda
Affiliation:
The School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
*
Corresponding author: Ethan Levitch; Email: ethan.levitch@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective:

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses an escalating global threat, transforming once-treatable infections into major health challenges. Although antibiotic misuse is a well-known driver of AMR, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, the silent epidemic may be fueled by socioeconomic disparities even in high-income countries. This systematic review investigates the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and AMR prevalence across high-income nations based on the World Bank classification.

Design:

The studies included in this review span multiple observational designs (cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control) across various high-income nations, assessing the association between SES indicators (eg, income, education, and household crowding) and AMR strains, primarily methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli.

Results:

Findings consistently indicate that lower SES correlates with higher AMR prevalence, particularly in MRSA infections (r = 0.76, Blakiston et al). The review highlights that indices of SES (often derived from government census data) are consistently associated with lower income, lower educational attainment, and increased household density with elevated AMR prevalence.

Conclusion:

The variability among studies in SES metrics, including income measures and deprivation indices, limits generalizability. Exceptions to this trend, noted in select studies focusing on distinct AMR strains like ceftriaxone-resistant E. coli, underscore the complexity of SES-related AMR mechanisms. This review supports public health initiatives aimed at targeting low-SES communities with AMR mitigation strategies, advocating for continued monitoring and intervention to curb AMR spread in vulnerable populations.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Figure 0

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Figure 1

Table 2. Study characteristics. Study characteristics and demographics of the included studies (n=14)

Figure 2

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of screening process.

Figure 3

Table 3. Summary of findings. Summary of included studies and relevant findings. Measure of interest includes both that of SES and secondary outcomes (AMS). Level of evidence was colored according to significance for ease of interpretation (green, statistically significant; red, not statistically significant). A P value < .05 was considered significant

Figure 4

Table 4. Determinants of SES and correlation to AMR. Compiled list of SES measures extracted from included studies. N refers to the number of studies measuring the given SES factor

Figure 5

Table 5. Quality assessment of included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 201816 was used to evaluate the quality of each study

Supplementary material: File

Levitch et al. supplementary material

Levitch et al. supplementary material
Download Levitch et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB