Objective To evaluate and compare the prevalence, reasons, sources and factors associated with self‐medication with antibiotics (SMA) within Africa. Methods Systematic review and meta‐analysis. An electronic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases was performed for observational studies conducted between January 2005 and February 2020. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts using the PRISMA flowchart and performed quality assessment of eligible studies. Both qualitative and quantitative syntheses were carried out. Results Forty studies from 19 countries were eligible for qualitative synthesis. The prevalence of SMA in Africa ranged from 12.1% to 93.9% with a median prevalence of 55.7% (IQR 41–75%). Western Africa was the sub‐region with the highest reported prevalence of 70.1% (IQR 48.3–82.1%), followed by Northern Africa with 48.1% (IQR 41.1–64.3%). We identified 27 antibiotics used for self‐medication from 13 different antibiotic classes. Most frequently used antibiotics were penicillins (31 studies), tetracyclines (25 studies) and fluoroquinolones (23 studies). 41% of these antibiotics belong to the WHO Watch Group. The most frequent indications for SMA were upper respiratory tract infections (27 studies), gastrointestinal tract symptoms (25 studies) and febrile illnesses (18 studies). Common sources of antibiotics used for self‐medication were community pharmacies (31 studies), family/friends (20 studies), leftover antibiotics (19 studies) and patent medicine stores (18 studies). The most frequently reported factor associated with SMA was no education/low educational status (nine studies). Conclusions The prevalence of SMA is high in Africa and varies across sub‐regions with the highest prevalence reported in Western Africa. Drivers of SMA are complex, comprising of socio‐economic factors and insufficient access to health care coupled with poorly implemented policies regulating antibiotic sales.

ObjectivesThe clinical and public health relevance of widespread case finding by testing for asymptomatic chlamydia infections is under debate. We wanted to explore future directions for chlamydia control and generate insights that might guide for evidence-based strategies. In particular, we wanted to know the extent to which we should pursue testing for asymptomatic infections at both genital and extragenital sites.MethodsWe synthesised findings from published literature and from discussions among national and international chlamydia experts during an invitational workshop. We described changing perceptions in chlamydia control to inform the development of recommendations for future avenues for chlamydia control in the Netherlands.ResultsDespite implementing a range of interventions to control chlamydia, there is no practice-based evidence that population prevalence can be reduced by screening programmes or widespread opportunistic testing. There is limited evidence about the beneficial effect of testing on pelvic inflammatory disease prevention. The risk of tubal factor infertility resulting from chlamydia infection is low and evidence on the preventable fraction remains uncertain. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment with antibiotics for self-limiting and non-viable infections have contributed to antimicrobial resistance in other pathogens and may affect oral, anal and genital microbiota. These changing insights could affect the outcome of previous cost–effectiveness analysis.ConclusionThe balance between benefits and harms of widespread testing to detect asymptomatic chlamydia infections is changing. The opinion of our expert group deviates from the existing paradigm of ‘test and treat’ and suggests that future strategies should reduce, rather than expand, the role of widespread testing for asymptomatic chlamydia infections.