Dataset Information

Examining the Effect of Context, Beliefs, and Values on UK Farm Veterinarians' Antimicrobial Prescribing: A Randomized Experimental Vignette and Cross-Sectional Survey.

ABSTRACT: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a pressing threat to public and animal health. There is evidence that antimicrobial prescribing and stewardship behaviors by veterinarians (vets) are influenced by non-clinical factors, such as psychological, social, and environmental factors. This study explored the role of context, beliefs, and values on vets' antimicrobial prescribing decisions. UK-based practicing farm vets (n = 97) were recruited to an online study. Using an experimental vignette methodology, vets were randomly assigned across four conditions, to examine the effects of different contexts (pressure on farm economics, the farmer, or the vet-farmer relationship, compared to a control condition) on vets' likelihood of prescribing antibiotics. Vets' beliefs about different groups' responsibility for causing and preventing AMR and vets' values were also measured. Key findings were that context alone, values, and beliefs about groups' responsibilities for causing AMR were not predictive of vets' likelihood of prescribing antibiotics. However, vets' beliefs about groups' responsibilities for preventing AMR were predictive of an increased likelihood of prescribing antibiotics, when vets were exposed to the experimental condition of the vignette in which the vet-farmer relationship was under pressure. Farm vets also believed that different groups have different levels of responsibility for causing and preventing AMR. Results should be interpreted cautiously, given the smaller than planned for sample size, and the possibility for both false negatives and false positives. Further research is needed to explore how these findings could inform antimicrobial stewardship interventions in veterinary medicine.

SUBMITTER: Golding SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8071438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although much research has investigated the drivers of inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in human medicine, equivalent research in veterinary medicine is in its infancy. This qualitative study used a critical incident approach to explore farm veterinarians' (vets) and farmers' beliefs about antimicrobial use and antimicrobial stewardship. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 vets and 12 farmers in the UK, who worked mostly with beef cattle, dairy cattle and sheep, but a minority also worked with pigs or poultry. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to explore how vets and farmers understood their responsibilities toward stewardship and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and to identify key similarities and differences between the professions. The analysis generated four themes: "A shared conflict between ideals and behaviour," "Barriers to stewardship: the vets' perspective," "Barriers to stewardship: the farmers' perspective," and "A shared ambivalence: ownership vs. other-blaming." Vets and farmers demonstrated good understanding of stewardship but their treatment decisions are not always aligned to stewardship principles. Various barriers to improving antimicrobial stewardship were discussed by vets and farmers, but they placed differing emphasis on specific barriers. Faced with these barriers and an awareness that antimicrobial usage is not always aligned to stewardship principles, vets and farmers expressed frustration and a sense of ambivalence toward stewardship, and also engaged in other-blaming for the problem of AMR. In conclusion, vets and farmers in this study seem motivated to be antimicrobial stewards but feel challenged by the day-to-day reality of their jobs; they experience ambivalence toward their responsibilities for AMR, which may negatively impact their motivation to always act as antimicrobial stewards. Successfully tackling AMR will require change at the individual-, group-, and societal-level. Future interventions to improve antimicrobial usage in livestock farming could be situated within a social ecological framework, where other-blaming between professions is seen as a result of the interplay between psychological and contextual factors. Other-blaming could be reduced using a social identity approach; a common ingroup identity could be created by encouraging vets and farmers to focus on their common goal, namely a shared desire to promote animal welfare through optimal antimicrobial stewardship.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The validated 'STARWAVe' (Short illness duration, Temperature, Age, Recession, Wheeze, Asthma, Vomiting) clinical prediction rule (CPR) uses seven variables to guide risk assessment and antimicrobial stewardship in children presenting with cough. We aimed to compare general practitioners' (GPs) risk assessments and prescribing decisions to those of STARWAVe and assess the influence of the CPR's clinical variables. SETTING:Primary care. PARTICIPANTS:252 GPs, currently practising in the UK. DESIGN:GPs were randomly assigned to view four (of a possible eight) clinical vignettes online. Each vignette depicted a child presenting with cough, who was described in terms of the seven STARWAVe variables. Systematically, we manipulated patient age (20 months vs 5 years), illness duration (3 vs 6 days), vomiting (present vs absent) and wheeze (present vs absent), holding the remaining STARWAVe variables constant. OUTCOME MEASURES:Per vignette, GPs assessed risk of hospitalisation and indicated whether they would prescribe antibiotics or not. RESULTS:GPs overestimated risk of hospitalisation in 9% of vignette presentations (88/1008) and underestimated it in 46% (459/1008). Despite underestimating risk, they overprescribed: 78% of prescriptions were unnecessary relative to GPs' own risk assessments (121/156), while 83% were unnecessary relative to STARWAVe risk assessments (130/156). All four of the manipulated variables influenced risk assessments, but only three influenced prescribing decisions: a shorter illness duration reduced prescribing odds (OR 0.14, 95%?CI 0.08 to 0.27, p<0.001), while vomiting and wheeze increased them (ORvomit 2.17, 95%?CI 1.32 to 3.57, p=0.002; ORwheeze 8.98, 95%?CI 4.99 to 16.15, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Relative to STARWAVe, GPs underestimated risk of hospitalisation, overprescribed and appeared to misinterpret illness duration (prescribing for longer rather than shorter illnesses). It is important to ascertain discrepancies between CPRs and current clinical practice. This has implications for the integration of CPRs into the electronic health record and the provision of intelligible explanations to decision-makers.

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:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Dataset Information

Examining the Effect of Context, Beliefs, and Values on UK Farm Veterinarians' Antimicrobial Prescribing: A Randomized Experimental Vignette and Cross-Sectional Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets