Dataset Information

A Focus Group Study of Canadian Dairy Farmers' Attitudes and Social Referents on Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance.

ABSTRACT: As part of broader actions to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR), health authorities have promoted the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in food animals. Farmers' attitudes and receptivity to reduction of AMU appear to be variable and context specific. Our research objectives were to gain insight into Canadian dairy farmers' attitudes toward AMU, AMR, and AMU-reduction in the dairy industry, and to explore drivers and barriers to change AMU, including the influence of social referents. We conducted seven focus groups with 42 farmers in two provinces of Canada (New Brunswick and Ontario) and used thematic analysis to identify, analyze, and report patterns in the data. Our results indicate that farmers usually rely on their previous experience and judgement of individual cases of disease when making decisions related to AMU. External referents included other farmers, family members, and veterinarians. However, veterinarians were generally only consulted for unusual cases. Participants in this study expressed that maintaining cattle welfare is their responsibility, and that they were not willing to jeopardize animal welfare in order to reduce AMU. In addition, farmers regarded the cost of investment in improved facilities to prevent disease as an important barrier to reduce AMU. Finally, the majority of participants considered themselves to be low users of antimicrobials and perceived a small role of AMU on dairy farms in AMR. In conclusion, farmers from this study showed self-reliance to decide about AMU on their farms and considered animal-related and economic factors in these decisions. There was a general lack of knowledge of how to reduce AMU without investing in facilities, and there is an opportunity to motivate increased involvement of the veterinarian in AMU-related decisions. These results should be considered to design and refine antimicrobial stewardship programs for dairy farms.

SUBMITTER: Cobo-Angel C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8239135 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an important challenge in public health. Ensuring rational antimicrobial use (AMU) on farms is one of the key components of antimicrobial stewardship. We aimed to describe a sample of Canadian dairy farmers’ personal factors for AMUand their AMR risk perception, and to associate these factors with their attitude toward promotion of prudent AMU. We distributed an online survey among dairy farmers in Ontario and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island). The questionnaire was designed to solicit information on dairy farmers’ AMU decision-making process, attitudes toward AMU reduction, awareness of AMR, and individual values. We performed a factor analysis on 15 statements related to AMR awareness and AMU reduction and used a logistic regression model to identify variables associated with the probability of disagreeing with the need to increase promotion of responsible AMU in the dairy industry. Respondents’ (n = 193) previous experience was the main reason to select an antimicrobial treatment for their cattle. We identified four groups of factors related to knowledge, risk perception, and emotional states among respondents. To the question “Should there be more initiatives to promote responsible use of antibiotics in the dairy industry?” 23% of respondents answered no, which was associated in a logistic regression model with being a farm owner, having a tie-stall barn, and considering their own experience as the most important factor in selecting antimicrobial treatments. The score for the conservation value dimension and score for a factor described as sense of responsibility when using antimicrobials were also retained in the final model. Our results indicate that tailored strategies to promote prudent AMU on dairy farms may be preferable to a generic strategy because there are individual differences in attitudes, values, and AMR awareness that shape AMR risk perception and willingness to modify current AMU practices.

Project description:The reduction of antimicrobials on dairy farms is a topical issue and confronts both veterinarians and farmers with major challenges. The aim of this study was to investigate dairy farmers' motivation to reduce antimicrobial use on their farms. Factors influencing dairy farmers' decision-making regarding dairy cow health were identified and the role of the veterinarian in these processes was characterized. A customized structured questionnaire was sent to all participants (n = 59) of an ongoing antimicrobial reduction project among dairy farmers in the Canton of Fribourg, Switzerland, by mail. Fifty-eight completed questionnaires were returned and evaluated (response rate 98.3%). The majority of respondents were men (56/58, 96.6%) and farm managers (55/57, 96.5%) managing their farms as their main occupation (56/57, 98.2%). Using a 5-point-Likert-scale (1 = not a reason, 5 = very important reason), respondents ranked "My veterinarian is putting pressure on us to use less antimicrobials" (median=2.5, interquartile range = 1-3) and "Other farmers also reduce antimicrobial use" (2.0, 1-3) as the least important factors affecting their motivation to reduce the use of antimicrobials in dairy cows (P < 0.001). Respondents ranked their veterinarian's opinion (4.0, 4-5) and their own feelings and knowledge (4.0, 3-4) as the two factors having significantly more importance on their decisions regarding dairy cow management (P < 0.001). The farmers indicated they were satisfied with the quality of the consultancy given by their veterinarians (4.0, 4-5) and with the quality of communication with veterinarians (4.0, 3-4). They indicated that they understood recommendations made by the veterinarian (4.0, 3.75-4) and also felt understood by the veterinarian (4.0, 3-4). However, only 25.9% (14/54) indicated they were willing to pay for good quality, farm-adapted consulting by their veterinarian. Based on these findings, veterinarians play an important role in influencing Swiss dairy farmers in decision-making concerning animal health and treatment. However, veterinarians were not viewed by farmers as important motivators for reducing antimicrobial use. Swiss veterinarians are encouraged to be aware of their influence on farmers' decisions and to use that influence to more clearly promote antimicrobial reduction on dairy farms.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs). DESIGN:Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded. METHODS:Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach. RESULTS:Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice. CONCLUSIONS:A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential. Statement of contribution What is already known? Many physicians report prescribing drugs for the purposes of eliciting a placebo effect. Initial evidence for the efficacy of open-label placebos is promising. What does this study add? A more nuanced description of the circumstances under which primary care physicians report placebo prescribing. A qualitative account of physician attitudes about using open-label placebos in clinical practice.

Project description:Pain is a significant welfare concern within the dairy industry. Recognizing and managing pain are important factors for safeguarding animal welfare. A questionnaire was sent via post to Irish dairy farmers and large animal veterinarians to assess attitudes to pain and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in pasture-based dairy cows. The questionnaire could also be completed online. A total of 1,002 surveys were received from dairy farmers and 116 from livestock veterinarians. Veterinarians and farmers generally perceived the same conditions and procedures as the most painful. However, farmers scored surgical procedures significantly higher than veterinarians, and veterinarians scored lameness-related conditions, mastitis (clots in milk only) and hock hair loss significantly higher than farmers. Higher pain scores for conditions and procedures given by dairy farmers and veterinarians were associated with increased NSAID use. However, the use of NSAIDs was low, relative to the pain score, for Burdizzo castration (farmers and veterinarians), white line separation (farmers and veterinarians) and abscess (veterinarians), mastitis with clots in milk only (farmers) and calving with no assistance (farmers). Veterinarians who graduated less recently had significantly lower odds of using NSAIDs, and farmers that completed the survey online, had a larger herd size, completed education up to level four or five (as opposed to level three) and those who seemed to have less knowledge on analgesics, had significantly lower odds of using NSAIDs. Empathy was not found to be associated with NSAID use and no correlation was found between pain and empathy scores. Veterinarians perceived cost as more of a barrier than farmers did; therefore, NSAIDs should be offered more readily. For those working with dairy cows, there is a need to continue education on the benefits of analgesia, especially for conditions and procedures that have low NSAID use relative to pain score. The habituation of humans to pain in animals needs to be prevented to enable pain to be recognized and managed appropriately. Pain scores can be used as a benchmark for veterinarians and farmers to determine how their perception of pain compares to others, and see how this may influence their NSAID use.

Dataset Information

A Focus Group Study of Canadian Dairy Farmers' Attitudes and Social Referents on Antimicrobial Use and Antimicrobial Resistance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets