Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Developing public health risk messages about antibiotic resistance using metaphors: an international co-design and e-Delphi consensus study
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 18 February 2026

Developing public health risk messages about antibiotic resistance using metaphors: an international co-design and e-Delphi consensus study

  • Eva M. Krockow1,
  • Meghann Jones1,
  • Samkele Mkumbuzi2,
  • Marc Mendelson2,
  • Carolyn Tarrant3,4,
  • Robert Froud5,6,
  • Anastasia Koch7,8,
  • Stephen J. Flusberg9 &
  • …
  • Emma Pitchforth10 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 95 Accesses

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Health care
  • Medical research

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat, yet public awareness of its causes and risks remains low, limiting behaviour change. Metaphors—linking abstract ideas to familiar concepts—are promising but underused tools in AMR communication. We conducted the first systematic mixed-methods study to develop novel metaphors addressing key misunderstandings and behaviours. Co-design workshops with the public and doctors in the UK (n = 29) and public in South Africa (n = 22) generated 89 initial metaphors. These were extended through 101 additional suggestions, and evaluated via a 3-round e-Delphi study with 37 AMR communication experts from 27 countries, using the UCLA/RAND appropriateness method. 38 metaphors were endorsed for global use. Invoking domains like nature, tools, and fire fighting, they offer relatable, culturally resonant alternatives to alarmist war and doomsday imagery. This study pioneers participatory methods in behavioural science and provides a blueprint for co-creating health messages, such as tailoring AMR metaphors to specific needs.

Data availability

The quantitative data set from all three rounds of the e-Delphi study and the full list of all metaphor ideas across the different project stages can be accessed via the Open Science Framework: https:/osf.io/r4tqx.

References

  1. Murray, C. J. L. et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet 399, 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0 (2022). https://doi.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Naghavi, M. et al. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990–2021: a systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. Lancet (2024).

  3. Sirota, M. et al. We must Harness the power of social and behavioural science against the growing pandemic of antimicrobial resistance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8, 11–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01762-y (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tarrant, C. et al. Optimizing antibiotic prescribing: collective approaches to managing a common-pool resource. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.03.008 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harring, N. & Krockow, E. M. The social dilemmas of climate change and antibiotic resistance: an analytic comparison and discussion of policy implications. Human. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8 (2021).

  6. Hinchliffe, S. et al. Healthy publics: enabling cultures and environments for health. Palgrave Commun. 4, 57. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0113-9 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wellcome Trust. Reframing resistance How to communicate about antimicrobial resistance effectively https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/reframing-resistance-report.pdf (2019).

  8. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Laytner, L. A. et al. Lack of knowledge of antibiotic risks contributes to primary care patients’ expectations of antibiotics for common symptoms. Annals Family Med. 22, 421–425. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3161 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Singh-Phulgenda, S., Antoniou, P., Wong, D. L. F., Iwamoto, K. & Kandelaki, K. Knowledge, attitudes and behaviors on antimicrobial resistance among general public across 14 member States in the WHO European region: results from a cross-sectional survey. Front. Public. Health 11 (2023).

  11. Muflih, S. M., Al-Azzam, S., Karasneh, R. A., Conway, B. R. & Aldeyab, M. A. Public health Literacy, Knowledge, and awareness regarding antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Cross-Sectional study. Antibiotics 10, 1107. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10091107 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen, M. P., Howlett, J., Del Mar, C. & Hoffmann, T. C. Parents’ beliefs and knowledge about the management of acute otitis media: a qualitative study. BMC Fam. Pract. 16, 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0297-7 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lim, J. M., Duong, M. C., Cook, A. R., Hsu, L. Y. & Tam, C. C. Public knowledge, attitudes and practices related to antibiotic use and resistance in singapore: a cross-sectional population survey. BMJ Open. 11, e048157. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048157 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  14. WHO & Antibiotic Resistance Multi-Country Public Awareness Survey. WHO Rep. (2015).

  15. Fuller, W. et al. Education and awareness on antimicrobial resistance in the WHO African region: A systematic review. Antibiotics 12, 1613 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fitzpatrick, F. et al. Sepsis and antimicrobial stewardship: two sides of the same coin. BMJ Qual. Saf. 28, 758–761. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009445 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fletcher-Miles, H., Gammon, J., Williams, S. & Hunt, J. A scoping review to assess the impact of public education campaigns to affect behavior change pertaining to antimicrobial resistance. Am. J. Infect. Control. 48, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.011 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krockow, E. M. J., Mkumbuzi, D. R. & Flusberg, S. Stephen J.; Tarrant, Carolyn why antimicrobial resistance messaging fails: qualitative insights interpreted through the elaboration likelihood model. JAC-Antimicrob. Resist. 7 (2025).

  19. Foundation, U. N. AMR messages at a glance: Essential messages about tackling the crisis of antimicrobial resistance. (2025).

  20. Carter, V. Social Media Advocay Toolkit for Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) https://amrnarrative.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Social-Media-Toolkit-for-Antimicrobial-Resistance-AMR-Advocacy-2024-1.pdf (2024).

  21. Naruse, H., Jindai, K. & Saito, T. Fictional heroes take on real public health problems: japan’s use of manga and anime in health campaigns. BMJ Opin. (2019).

  22. Agency, U. H. & a. S. UKHSA launches campaign to tackle misconceptions on antibiotics. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukhsa-launches-campaign-to-tackle-misconceptions-on-antibiotics (2025).

  23. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by (University of Chicago Press, 1980).

  24. Flusberg, S. J., Mackey, A. & Semino, E. Seatbelts and raincoats, or banks and castles: investigating the impact of vaccine metaphors. PLOS ONE. 19, e0294739. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294739 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Flusberg, S. J., Holmes, K. J., Thibodeau, P. H., Nabi, R. L. & Matlock, T. The psychology of framing: how everyday Language shapes the way we Think, Feel, and act. Psychol. Sci. Public. Interest. 25 https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006241246966 (2024).

  26. Citron, F. M. & Goldberg, A. E. Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 26, 2585–2595. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hendricks, R. K., Zsófia, D., Elena, S., Boroditsky, L. & and Emotional implications of metaphor: consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about cancer. Metaphor Symbol. 33, 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1549835 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harrington, K. J. The use of metaphor in discourse about cancer: a review of the literature. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 16, 408–412. https://doi.org/10.1188/12.Cjon.408-412 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Panzeri, F., Di Paola, S. & Domaneschi, F. Does the COVID-19 war metaphor influence reasoning? PLoS One. 16, e0250651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250651 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Xu, Q. & Comparing COVID-19 metaphors in Chinese and english social media with critical metaphor analysis. Front. Psychol. 14, 1198265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1198265 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moore, D. C. B. C. et al. Childhood vaccine hesitancy: the power of metaphors. Vaccine 58, 127221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127221 (2025). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/

    Google Scholar 

  32. Macagno, F. & Rossi, M. G. Metaphors and problematic Understanding in chronic care communication. J. Pragmat. 151, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.03.010 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/

    Google Scholar 

  33. Krockow, E. M., Jones, M., Tarrant, C., Mendelson, M. & Flusberg, S. J. Risk communication about antimicrobial resistance: A content analysis of metaphor use in global public discourse. J. Risk Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2025.2485044 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nerlich, B. The post-antibiotic apocalypse and the war on superbugs: catastrophe discourse in microbiology, its rhetorical form and political function. Public. Underst. Sci. 18, 574–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087974 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bouchoucha, S. L., Whatman, E. & Johnstone, M. J. Media representation of the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis: an Australian perspective. Infect. Disease Health. 24, 23–31 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rajkhowa, A. & Thursky, K. Awareness of antimicrobial resistance in the community: the role of the WHO in addressing consumer information needs. J. Consumer Health Internet. 24, 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15398285.2020.1810965 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  37. ECDC. Is this an effective protection against colds or flu? Neither are antibiotics.. https://antibiotic.ecdc.europa.eu/en/poster-effective-protection-against-colds-or-flu-neither-are-antibiotics-antivirus (2017).

  38. EU-JAMRAI. Don’t leave it halfway. https://eu-jamrai.eu/jamrai1/dontleaveithalfway/ (2018).

  39. CDC. Healthy Habits: Antibiotic Do’s and Don’ts, https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/about/index.html.

  40. UK, N. Antibiotics.

  41. Spellberg, B. Shorter is Better. https://www.bradspellberg.com/shorter-is-better

  42. Mo, Y., Tan, W. C. & Cooper, B. S. Antibiotic duration for common bacterial infections—a systematic review. JAC-Antimicrob. Resist. 7 https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlae215 (2025).

  43. Scott-Dearing, E., Carter, V., Corley, M., Mathew, P. & Darzi, A. Patient and public involvement and engagement to improve impact on antimicrobial resistance. Nat. Commun. 16, 1022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55410-8 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Montgomery, S. L. Codes and combat in biomedical discourse. Sci. As Cult. 2, 341–390 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Olza, I., Koller, V., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Pérez-Sobrino, P. & Semino, E. The #ReframeCovid initiative from Twitter to society via metaphor. Metaphor Social World. 11, 98–120 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Blaschke, S. The role of nature in cancer patients’ lives: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. BMC Cancer. 17, 370. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3366-6 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Semino, E. A ‘metaphor menu’ for people living with cancer. https://wp.lancs.ac.uk/melc/the-metaphor-menu/

  48. Koteyko, N., Nerlich, B., Crawford, P. & Wright, N. Not rocket science’ or ‘No silver bullet’? Media and government discourses about MRSA and cleanliness. Appl. Linguist. 29, 223–243 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Peters, J., Dykes, N., Habermann, M., Ostgathe, C. & Heckel, M. Metaphors in German newspaper articles on multidrug-resistant bacteria in clinical contexts, 1995–2015: A computer-assisted study. Metaphor Social World. 9, 221–241 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Semino, E. Not soldiers but Fire-fighters – Metaphors and Covid-19. Health Commun. 36, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rex, J. H. & Outterson, K. Antibiotic reimbursement in a model delinked from sales: a benchmark-based worldwide approach. Lancet. Infect. Dis. 16, 500–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00500-9 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rex, J. H. #FireExtinguishersOfMedicine, https://amr.solutions/fire-extinguishers-of-medicine/

  53. Landau, M. J., Arndt, J. & Cameron, L. D. Do metaphors in health messages work? Exploring emotional and cognitive factors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 74, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.006 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bowdle, B. F. & Gentner, D. The career of metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 112, 193–216 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T. & Thibodeau, P. H. Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environ. Communication. 11, 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289111 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T. & Thibodeau, P. H. War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor Symbol. 33, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thibodeau, P. H. & Boroditsky, L. Metaphors we think with: the role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One 6 (2011).

  58. Risbey, J. S. The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming? Glob. Environ. Change. 18, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.06.003 (2008). https://doi.org/https://

    Google Scholar 

  59. Osei-Tutu, A. A. Z. Developing African oral traditional storytelling as a framework for studying with African peoples. Qualitative Res. 23, 1497–1514. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221082263 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Messiha, K. et al. Systematic review of contemporary theories used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in public health. J. Public Health. 45, 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdad046 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Iniesto, F., Charitonos, K. & Littlejohn, A. A review of research with co-design methods in health education. Open. Educ. Stud. 4, 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2022-0017 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ayob, N., Teasdale, S. & Fagan, K. How social innovation ‘Came to be’: tracing the evolution of a contested concept. J. Social Policy. 45, 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941600009X (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Flusberg, S. J. & Thibodeau, P. H. Why is mother Earth on life support? Metaphors in environmental discourse. Top. Cogn. Sci. 15, 522–545 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mnguni, A. T. et al. The clinical and epidemiological characteristics of a series of patients living with HIV admitted for COVID-19 in a district hospital. BMC Infect. Dis. 23, 123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08004-6 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Willis, M. E. Critical realism and qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Res. Psychol. 20, 265–288 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Jones, J. & Hunter, D. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311, 376–380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Panickar, R., Aziz, Z., Teo, C. H. & Kamarulzaman, A. Strategies to enhance risk communication about medicines in malaysia: a Delphi study among multinational experts. BMC Health Serv. Res. 24, 1019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11476-0 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Berardi, R. et al. Communication in oncology between healthcare providers, patients, the scientific community, and the media: recommendations from the Italian association of medical oncology (AIOM). Support. Care Cancer. 32, 613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08786-8 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Oh, A. Y. et al. Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities. Transl Behav. Med. 12, 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibac068 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Daniela, M. et al. Responsible artificial intelligence in public health: a Delphi study on risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management. BMJ Global Health. 10, e018545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018545 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Fitch, K. et al. RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual. (RAND Corporation Santa Monica, 2000).

  72. Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M. & Brook, R. H. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am. J. Public Health. 74, 979–983. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Seed Creativity Ltd in facilitating the UK co-design workshops, the contributions of 51 co-design participants from the UK and South Africa, and 37 international AMR expert communicators, the following of which gave permission to be named: Oluwatosin Akinwotu, Laura Alonso Irujo on behalf of EU-JAMRAI 2 Communication Team, Chris Angwin, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Lejla Beglerovic, Adrian Brink, Liz Callegari, Edward Demicoli, José Pablo Díaz Madriz, Kenneth C. Egwu, Eva Garmendia, Brigitte Gschmeidler, Gertrude Mmboga Kayeyia, Francesco M. Labricciosa, Maryn McKenna, Jameela Mohammed Al-Salman, Fabrizio Motta, Carine Naim, Jacqueline Nassuna, Marissa Novel on behalf of CARB-X, Bukola Opeyemi Oluwarinde, Céline Pulcini, John H. Rex, Nour Shamas, Diane Shader Smith, Shobha Shukla, Ernest Tambo, Erick Venant.

Funding

This work was supported by an ESRC New Investigator Award to the lead author (Grant reference: ES/X001652/1). MM declares funding by Wellcome Trust CAMO-Net grant (226690/Z/22/Z).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology and Vision Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    Eva M. Krockow & Meghann Jones

  2. Division of Infectious Diseases & HIV Medicine, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Samkele Mkumbuzi & Marc Mendelson

  3. School of Medical Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Carolyn Tarrant

  4. National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (GM PSRC), Manchester, UK

    Carolyn Tarrant

  5. School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway

    Robert Froud

  6. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Robert Froud

  7. Eh!woza, Khayelitsha, South Africa

    Anastasia Koch

  8. Molecular Mycobacteriology Research Unit, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine and Department of Pathology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Anastasia Koch

  9. Department of Cognitive Science, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA

    Stephen J. Flusberg

  10. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Emma Pitchforth

Authors
  1. Eva M. Krockow
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meghann Jones
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samkele Mkumbuzi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc Mendelson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carolyn Tarrant
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert Froud
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anastasia Koch
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stephen J. Flusberg
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Emma Pitchforth
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

**Eva Krockow: ** Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. **Meghann Jones: ** Data curation, Investigation, Project administration, Writing—review & editing. **Samkele Mkumbuzi: ** Conceptualisation, Investigation, Writing—review & editing. **Marc Mendelson: ** Conceptualisation, Writing—review & editing. **Carolyn Tarrant: ** Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—review & editing. **Robert Froud: ** Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—review & editing. **Anastasia Koch: ** Investigation, Writing—review & editing. **Stephen Flusberg: ** Writing—review & editing. **Emma Pitchforth: ** Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing—review & editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva M. Krockow.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

RF is a Delphi methodologist and a director of Clinvivo Ltd, which provided services to deliver the e-Delphi study. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krockow, E.M., Jones, M., Mkumbuzi, S. et al. Developing public health risk messages about antibiotic resistance using metaphors: an international co-design and e-Delphi consensus study. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40577-5

Download citation

  • Received: 28 September 2025

  • Accepted: 13 February 2026

  • Published: 18 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-40577-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Antimicrobial resistance
  • Antibiotic resistance
  • Drug-resistant infections
  • Public health
  • Risk communication
  • Metaphor
  • Analogy
Download PDF

Associated content

Collection

Antimicrobial resistance: a silent pandemic

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing