Dataset Information

Use of a systems engineering framework to assess perceptions and practices about antimicrobial resistance of workers on large dairy farms in Wisconsin.

ABSTRACT: We studied farmworker practices potentially contributing to transmission of bacteria and antimicrobial resistant genes (ARGs) among animals and farm workers to identify human behavioral interventions to reduce exposure risk. Ten focus groups were conducted on eight farms to explore potentially high-risk practices and farmworker knowledge and experiences with antimicrobial use and resistance using the Systems Engineering in Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Farmworkers were asked to describe common tasks and the policies guiding these practices. We found workers demonstrated knowledge of the role of antibiotic stewardship in preventing the spread of ARGs. Knowledge of various forms of personal protective equipment was higher for workers who commonly reported glove-use. Knowledge regarding the importance of reducing ARG transmission varied but was greater than previously reported. Programs to reduce ARG spread on dairy farms should focus on proper hand hygiene and personal protective equipment use but at the level of knowledge, beliefs, and practices.

SUBMITTER: Kates AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654902 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of a systems engineering framework to assess perceptions and practices about antimicrobial resistance of workers on large dairy farms in Wisconsin.

Kates Ashley E AE Knobloch Mary Jo MJ Konkel Ali A Young Amanda A Steinberger Andrew A Shutske John J Ruegg Pamela L PL Sethi Ajay K AK Goldberg Tony T Leite de Campos Juliana J Suen Garret G Safdar Nasia N

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 20201103

We studied farmworker practices potentially contributing to transmission of bacteria and antimicrobial resistant genes (ARGs) among animals and farm workers to identify human behavioral interventions to reduce exposure risk. Ten focus groups were conducted on eight farms to explore potentially high-risk practices and farmworker knowledge and experiences with antimicrobial use and resistance using the Systems Engineering in Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Farmworkers were asked to describe comm ...[more]

PMID: 33173906

Similar Datasets

Project description:It is unknown whether calf rearing facilities in the Republic of Ireland are fit for purpose, or if facilities sufficiently consider calf and farmer welfare. The aim of this study was to review current calf housing facilities and management practices on Irish farms to determine if calves are reared in structurally appropriate facilities with management decisions that safeguard calf and farmer welfare. Fifty-one farms located in the Munster region in the Republic of Ireland were visited twice: (1) Pre-calving (December-January) and (2) During peak calving (January-March). During visit one, herd owners completed a questionnaire regarding calf housing and management practices on-farm and each facility used to rear calves was measured (measurement of cubic air capacity, ventilation, pen area, drainage etc.) without calves being present. Visit two consisted of a short interview with the principal calf manager to validate previously asked questions and environmental based measurements of each calf house that had been recorded, with any deviation from the first visit noted (measurements of temperature, wind speed, light intensity, facility provisions in-house and in-pen; calves present). Average herd size was 254, operating a spring calving system with a median calving season length of 11.6 weeks. While most farms expanded (88%; N = 51), this did not appear to have negatively affected calf space allowances (9.9% houses overcrowded at a space allowance of 1.5 m2/calf; N = 121). Calves were most commonly housed in group sizes of <12 (71.6% of all groupings; N = 394), with farmers moving away from individual housing for a period immediately post-birth, to grouping them immediately instead (58.8%; N = 51). The number of farmers testing colostrum was 31.4% (N = 51). Although the calving season was compact, most farmers were unconcerned about the upcoming spring workload (58.8%; N = 51). Farms appeared sufficiently prepared for spring, with most using the same number or less sheds during visit two than declared in visit one (76.5%; N = 51). To conclude, farmers made sufficient provision for calf housing and space allowances for calves that facilitated group housing post-birth. While structural and management components of rearing systems appear in line with sectoral recommendations, certain areas require attention on many farms (e.g., colostrum testing) to safeguard calf welfare and reduce the workload associated with calf rearing for farmers.

Project description:BackgroundThe threat of antimicrobial resistance is triggering the need for behavioural change towards antimicrobial use on Irish farms. Newly introduced veterinary medicine regulations are mandating the restricted and more prudent use of antimicrobials in the animal health sector. The need to reduce antimicrobials has placed a greater emphasis on the importance of animal health testing, however, issues with current testing practices are affecting diagnosis and subsequent drug usage. There is potential for digital technologies to address these issues and reduce antimicrobial use on farms, however, for these tools to be successful, they would need to be developed in collaboration with future end users.ResultsUsing qualitative approaches (focus groups), this study engages with dairy farmers and farm veterinary practitioners to detail current challenges with animal health diagnosis and to explore the initial development of a rapid, on-farm animal health testing tool to address these challenges. Issues with timing and testing, the role of knowledge and experience, and veterinarian availability all affect the ability of farmers and veterinarians to diagnose animal health issues on farm. These issues are having negative implications including the increased and unnecessary use of antimicrobials. An on-farm testing tool would help mitigate these effects by allowing veterinarians to achieve rapid diagnosis, facilitating the timely and targeted treatment of animal illnesses, helping to reduce overall antimicrobial use on farms. However, engagement with end users has highlighted that if a tool like this is not developed correctly, it could have unintended negative consequences such as misdiagnosis, increased antimicrobial use, challenges to farmer-veterinarian relationships, and data misuse. This study outlines initial end user needs and requirements for a testing tool but suggests that in order to successfully design and develop this tool, co-design approaches such as Design Thinking should be applied; to mitigate future negative impacts, and to ensure a testing tool like this is designed specifically to address Irish dairy farmers and farm veterinarians' values and needs, ensuring responsible and successful uptake and use.ConclusionsDigital tools can be effective in reducing antimicrobial use on farms, however, to be successful, these tools should be designed in a user centred way.

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.

Dataset Information

Use of a systems engineering framework to assess perceptions and practices about antimicrobial resistance of workers on large dairy farms in Wisconsin.

Publications

Use of a systems engineering framework to assess perceptions and practices about antimicrobial resistance of workers on large dairy farms in Wisconsin.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets