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.

In the United Kingdom, blanket antibiotic dry cow therapy (BDCT) is commonly prescribed. An alternate strategy is selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) whereby a teat sealant is given instead of an antibiotic to cows with a low probability of infection. Switching from BDCT to SDCT can significantly reduce antibiotic use. The aims of this study were to explore how veterinarians (vets) rationalized their prescribing decisions for mammary treatments at drying off, and the barriers and motivators they perceived to implementing SDCT. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 purposively recruited vets from 6 practices in England, United Kingdom. The data were analyzed qualitatively using an inductive thematic analysis. The majority of participants stated a personal preference for SDCT because it constitutes more responsible antibiotic use. On the majority of farms, the prescribing decision was taken by a senior veterinarian and BDCT was prescribed. Less experienced vets expressed a desire to be more involved in the decision-making process. The first theme, prioritizing responsible antimicrobial prescribing, encapsulated the difficulties vets expressed engaging with farmers, conflicts of interest, and vets' determination to take action. The second theme, the effect of a vet's experience on their ability to influence farmers, focused on the specific challenges faced by less experienced vets and the importance of vets being both trusted by farmers and being knowledgeable. The third theme, vets' perceptions about the risk and complexity of implementing SDCT, revealed markedly different levels of concern and fears about adverse outcomes with teat sealants versus antibiotics. The results also showed differences in perceptions about how difficult SDCT is to implement in practice. The last theme, vets' suggestions for facilitating the introduction of SDCT, was wide ranging and provided useful insight from a veterinary perspective into ways to facilitate SDCT. Initiatives that seek to alter vets' perceptions of the risks associated with switching to using SDCT are likely to prove useful in facilitating change. Our results also suggest that it is vital for senior vets to take a leading role in facilitating farms to implement SDCT. Less experienced colleagues may benefit from more help from senior vets to gain the trust of farmers and to become involved more quickly in herd-level preventive medicine. Vets must work together and take a united approach to reduce antimicrobial use.

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.

No abstract

This paper discusses a health promotion intervention that sets out to develop local capacity to address chronic disease risk factors in a remote Australian community. Community focus groups, and researcher and community discussions, aimed to determine the community's health concerns and build a partnership for community action. The journey from conception to reality was difficult for a number of reasons that are described here. Despite these difficulties, a range of outcomes included the establishment of an organisational structure that involved a local health promotion committee as the principal decision-maker, the establishment of a grants scheme to support locally determined initiatives and the formal incorporation of a community Health Promotion Committee (HPC) that ensured the sustainability of activities beyond the funded project period. The HPC is still coordinating health promotion activities. The promotion of community ownership of health promotion activities is a complicated process, given that time, resources, expertise and community involvement require a much longer-term commitment than that currently imposed by many funding bodies.