Dataset Information

Drivers, alternatives, knowledge, and perceptions towards antimicrobial use among Tennessee beef cattle producers: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of antimicrobial resistance in both animals and humans, which has triggered concerns over non-judicious antimicrobial use. In the United States, antimicrobial use in food-producing animals for growth promotion or improved feed efficiency is perceived as non-judicious. To facilitate judicious antimicrobial use, the United States Food and Drug Administration implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive, effective from January 1, 2017. Interventions, such as the VFD, designed to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobials among cattle producers may be more effective if the factors that inform and influence producer AMU practices are addressed. The specific objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) the perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding antimicrobial resistance, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent antimicrobial use. A total of 5 focus group meetings with beef producers were conducted in East, Middle, and West Tennessee. Each focus group was video recorded and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo.

Results

The factors that producers considered to drive antimicrobial use were the type of cattle operation, disease and animal welfare, economic factors, veterinarian consultation, producer's experience and peer support, Veterinary Feed Directive, and perceived drug efficacy. Vaccination, proper nutrition, and other good management practices were considered alternatives to antimicrobial use. To encourage vaccine use among small producers, participants suggested packaging vaccines into smaller quantities. Antimicrobial resistance was perceived to be a problem affecting animal and public health. Participants suggested additional education for cattle producers on the prudent use of antimicrobials as a measure for improving antimicrobial use. The veterinarian, producer associations and meetings, and county extension agents emerged as trusted avenues for channeling information on prudent antimicrobial use to cattle producers.

Conclusions

Several factors drive antimicrobial use among cattle producers in Tennessee. Participants generally perceived their antimicrobial use to be discreet and only when necessary. More awareness of drivers for the development of antimicrobial resistance and continuing education on prudent antimicrobial use is needed for Tennessee beef producers.

SUBMITTER: Ekakoro JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6323766 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Nonjudicious antimicrobial use (AMU) and inadequate antimicrobial stewardship are known modifiable factors driving the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A mixed methods approach using a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires was used to explore the AMU practices of Tennessee (TN) dairy cattle producers. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to determine the following: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) knowledge of and perceptions regarding AMR, (4) and the appropriate avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. Two focus groups were conducted, one in July 2017 and the other in March 2018. The questionnaire was simultaneously made available to participants both in print form and online from January 26, 2018, through May 11, 2018. Twenty-three dairy producers participated in the focus groups and 45 responded to the survey. Eight (18.6%) producers never used bacterial culture and sensitivity testing (C/S) to select antimicrobials, more than half (25 producers (58.1%)) sometimes used C/S, four (9.3%) used C/S about half the time, five (11.6%) most of the time, and one (2.3%) always used C/S. The most common drivers for using antimicrobials were disease and animal welfare, pathogen surveillance, economic factors, veterinarian recommendation, producer's experience and judgment, drug attributes, and the Veterinary Feed Directive. Good management practices, vaccination, use of immunomodulatory products, and use of appropriate technology for early disease detection were considered alternatives to AMU. Four (9.1%) dairy producers were very concerned about AMR, 27 (61.4%) moderately concerned, and 10 (22.7%) not concerned. The veterinarian was considered to be a trusted source of information on prudent AMU. Use of C/S test results for antimicrobial selection is widespread among TN dairy producers. There is a need to popularize/promote selective dry cow therapy among TN dairy producers.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a key modifiable factor that leads to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the opinions on factors driving AMU (2) opinions on alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding AMU and AMR, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU. A survey questionnaire was made available to participants both in print and online from January 26, 2018 through May 11, 2018. The questions targeted the producers' demographics and their AMU practices; factors driving producer's choice of antimicrobials; perceptions, opinions and concerns about AMU and AMR in cattle production. Ordinal logistic regression was used to test for associations between the captured demographic information and producers' degree of concern about AMR.ResultsOverall, 231 beef producers responded to all or some of the survey questions. More than 60% of the participants mentioned that they kept up-to-date written records on antimicrobial purchases and AMU. Regarding extra-label use, 169 (84.1%) of the 201 respondents did not practice extra-label AMU. Profitability of the beef operation was a key factor influencing the decisions of many producers to use antimicrobials for disease management and prevention on their farms. Of the 228 producers who completed the question on the rating of their degree of concern about AMR, 50 (21.9%) reported that they were very concerned about AMR, 133 (58.3%) were moderately concerned, and 36 (15.8%) reported that they were not concerned about AMR. Nine producers (4%) did not rate their degree of concern about AMR because they were not familiar with what antimicrobial resistance meant. The inferential analyses suggested that younger beef producers were significantly less concerned about AMR when compared to the older ones (P = 0.019). Regarding avenues for receiving information on prudent AMU, no single medium was most preferred by all the respondents.ConclusionsThere is a need to promote the use of written antimicrobial treatment protocols among beef producers in Tennessee. Continued training for beef producers on infection prevention and control and prudent AMU is needed.

Project description:Simple Summary Understanding the emotional experiences of producers towards their antimicrobial use (AMU) practices can be a starting point to making future behavioral changes that could reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance challenge. Between June 2017 and March 2018, seven focus group meetings of Tennessee (TN) beef and dairy cattle producers were conducted to evaluate producers’ emotional views regarding responsible AMU in cattle. Sixty-two TN cattle producers participated and emotively expressed the following: (1) deep connections to animals in ways that improve animal and public health; (2) pride in their quality of products; (3) distress that consumers misconceive their AMU practices as indiscriminate; and (4) recommended that producers be more transparent about their AMU practices and the public improve their awareness for detecting marketers’ deceptive product labels that take advantage of public ignorance. Knowledge of these producers’ emotions would help educators target more successful behavioral change campaigns, improving stewardship in AMU practices among producers. Abstract To improve judicious antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals in the United States, all feed additives that were medically important antimicrobials were moved from over the counter to Veterinary Feed Directive in 2017. This action required a change in behavior of producers’ AMU practices. Because emotions are important aspects of behavior, several behavioral interventions have targeted people’s emotions as means of effecting change. Hence, understanding and incorporating the emotional experiences of producers towards current AMU practices can be a starting point to making future behavioral changes that could reduce the emergence of antimicrobial resistance challenge. Between June 2017 and March 2018, seven focus group meetings of Tennessee (TN) beef and dairy cattle producers were conducted to evaluate producers’ emotional views regarding responsible AMU in TN cattle. Sixty-two TN cattle producers participated and emotively expressed the following: (1) deep connections to animals in ways that improve animal and public health; (2) pride in their quality of products; (3) distress that consumers misconceive their AMU practices as indiscriminate; and (4) recommended that producers be more transparent about their AMU practices and the public improve their awareness for detecting marketers’ deceptive product labels that take advantage of public ignorance. Knowledge of these producers’ emotions would help educators target more successful behavioral change campaigns, improving stewardship in AMU practices among producers.

Project description:Lameness in the beef industry has received little attention in the UK, despite the fact that it is a well-recognised problem in the dairy industry. The aims of this study were to (i) compare UK beef farmers' estimates of lameness prevalence to that of researchers, (ii) explore beef farmers' attitudes towards lameness, and (iii) help identify farmer reported barriers to lameness control and treatment. Beef farmers (11 finishing units and 10 suckler farms) were recruited from England and Wales. Farmers were asked to estimate their lameness prevalence, before a researcher conducted locomotion scoring using a five point scale, and a Bland Altman analysis performed. Face to face interviews were also conducted using a semi structured interview script aimed at capturing information such as current approaches and protocols as well as their views of lameness importance. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. An inductive thematic analysis was performed. All but two farmers underestimated lameness prevalence on their farms when compared to the researcher. Farmers initially underestimated lameness prevalence compared to the researchers estimates, with a mean underestimate of 7% (95% CI 5-9%). This is an important barrier to lameness detection and treatment. Thematic analysis identified four major themes: (1). Perception of lameness prevalence, (2). Technical knowledge and skills, (3). Perception of the impact of lameness, and (4). Barriers to the treatment and control of lameness. This study highlights that some approaches to lameness treatment are likely to be causing harm, despite being done with the intention to help the animal. There were four key areas of concern identified: recognition of lameness, treatment approaches, the training provided to farmers and confusion over transport and slaughter options available to farmers. This suggests an urgent need for future work to quantify and address the problem, and to provide evidence to justify the role of prevention and potentially start to break down barriers to control and treatment of lameness.

Project description:IntroductionInappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock production is an important aspect of the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In Ethiopia, a low-income country with a large and increasing livestock population, AMU in food animals is not properly regulated. Hence, farmers are fully free to use antimicrobials to their (perceived) benefit. Therefore, understanding farmers' mindsets is important to improve antimicrobial stewardship in the livestock sector.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted to assess livestock disease management practices and knowledge, attitude, and behavior (KAB) among livestock producers regarding AMU, residues, and resistance, as well as factors potentially explaining differences in KAB. We determined the KAB of livestock owners of three selected districts of central and western Ethiopia (n = 457), using a pretested questionnaire administered through face-to-face interviews. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between potential explanatory variables and the KAB scores of the respondents.ResultsThe results showed that 44% of the farmers used antimicrobials in the past few years, where antibiotics (21%) and trypanocides (11%) were most widely used to manage livestock diseases. Furthermore, most farmers showed poor knowledge about AMU, residues, and AMR (94%) and unfavorable attitudes (<50% correct answers) toward contributing factors for AMR (97%). On the contrary, 80% of the respondents had overall good behavior scores (≥50% correct answers) related to AMU. Multivariate analysis results showed that having good knowledge, keeping ≥2 animal species, and the occurrence of ≥4 livestock diseases on the farm in a year were strong predictors of bad behavior scores (p < 0.05). The findings of the current investigation also revealed that the incidence of livestock diseases on the farm and a higher level of formal education significantly contributed to better knowledge and desirable attitudes but bad AMU behavior.ConclusionA low level of awareness about and undesirable attitudes toward AMU and AMR could potentially affect farmers' behavior toward judicious AMU, thus requiring awareness creation efforts on livestock disease management practices.