Introduction Antimicrobial resistance is a growing global public health concern, aggravated by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials and antibiotics, which intensifies treatment costs for common and life-threatening infections. Despite the presence of a few studies, no study was conducted among health workers in the study area. The study aimed to assess antimicrobial stewardship practices and associated factors among healthcare professionals in public health facilities in the Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Methodology A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from August 1 to 30 2025, among 406 healthcare professionals selected through simple random sampling. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire, entered into Epidata version 4.6, and analysed using SPSS version 27. Bivariate and multivariate analyses identified factors influencing antimicrobial stewardship practices, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The study revealed that 51.7% (95%CI: 46.7-56.7) of healthcare professionals had good antimicrobial stewardship practices. Significantly Factors associated with practices of antimicrobial stewardship include being over 30 years old (AOR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07-5.28), having higher education level (AOR 5.48, 95% CI 1.57-19.15), more work experience (AOR 2.37, 95% CI 1.11-5.04) professional types (AOR 2.77, 95% CI 1.03-7.49), receiving training (AOR 7.18, 95% CI 1.88-12.5), good knowledge (AOR 1.61- 95% CI 1.04-2.49), and having a positive attitude (AOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11-2.72). Conclusions The findings highlight suboptimal antimicrobial stewardship practices, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions. Addressing factors such as age, education, experience, training, knowledge, and attitude is crucial for improving AMS and enhancing training programs, developing comprehensive curricula, and monitoring AMS practices, particularly among older health professionals, to mitigate AMS and improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gelchu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: