A Systematic Review on Antimicrobial Resistance in Ghana from a One Health Perspective

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a global health threat, with lower-middle-income countries bearing a disproportionate burden. Surveillance of AMR under a One Health framework is needed to elucidate the associations among clinical, animal, and environmental AMR. This review aimed to describe the state of AMR in Ghana, focusing on One Health.

Method: This review utilized the PRISMA guidelines and major databases to systematically search and analyze AMR in Ghana published from 1 January 2014 to 1 May 2023.

Results: Out of the 48 articles that met the inclusion criteria, 28 studies were conducted on humans, 14 studies involved animals, and 6 studies focused on the environment. A total of 48 different pathogens were identified across the human, animal, and environmental sectors, with the most common being Escherichia coli (67%, n = 32), Klebsiella spp. (52%, n = 25), Pseudomonas spp. (40%, n = 19), and Salmonella spp. (38%, n = 18). Generally, a high prevalence of antibiotic resistance was observed among various bacterial species across the sectors. These bacteria exhibited resistance to commonly used antibiotics, with resistance to ampicillin and tetracycline exceeding 80%, and multidrug resistance (MDR) ranging from 17.6% in Shigella spp. to 100% in Acinetobacter spp.

Conclusion: This review reaffirms the significant challenge of AMR in Ghana, with a high prevalence observed in the human, animal, and environmental sectors. Key pathogens (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli) found across the sectors emphasize the urgent need for a One Health approach to tackle AMR in Ghana.

Keywords: Ghana; One Health; animal health; antimicrobial resistance (AMR); environment; human health; multidrug resistance (MDR); surveillance; systematic review.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for the identification, screening, and evaluation of articles included in the study.

Figure 2

List of all bacteria isolated across the studies.

Figure 3

Assessment of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63].