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

Ekakoro, John E.; Caldwell, Marc; Strand, Elizabeth B.; Okafor, Chika C.

doi:10.1186/s12917-018-1731-6

Cited by 43 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The marketing of antimicrobials directly to food animal producers is discouraged by the World Organization for Animal health [31]. Similar to the findings of our previous qualitative study, where producers believed that antimicrobial marketing techniques are persuasive and aggressive [25], our findings in the present study show that many producers (41%) believed the aggressive marketing of antibiotics by pharmaceutical companies greatly influenced producers’ AMU. Many producers (25.5%) in the present study believed that antimicrobial drug label instructions were difficult to understand and interpret.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The findings of this survey are generally in keeping with the findings of our previous qualitative study of AMU among TN beef producers [25] and provide insight into the AMU practices of TN beef producers. Additionally, this present study identified opportunities for improving AMU among these producers at a time when AMU in food animals is under public scrutiny.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…This present study was built on the preliminary findings of a previous qualitative study [25] with the aim of exploring how much the results of the qualitative study holds true for the larger population of TN beef producers. This present study, therefore, aimed at contributing to the wider knowledge of AMU by providing insights into the current practices, perceptions, and opinions of TN beef producers regarding AMU and AMR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Inappropriate 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. Results Overall, 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. Conclusions There 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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-019-1978-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors also found that advice from veterinarians and other farmers seemed more important than scientific reports when farmers were making decisions about using AMs, and they concluded that education (e.g., via posters, flowcharts, videos, seminars) on the appropriate use of antibiotics is required. Another qualitative US study examining drivers for AM usage in beef cattle producers also found that practical considerations, including economic factors, the influence of veterinarians and peers, and animal welfare, and not concerns over AMR, were instrumental in AM usage decisions [33]. Vaccination and good management practices were seen as valid alternatives to AM use.…”

Section: Psychological Studies On Amr In Food-producing Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial Resistance in Humans and Animals: Rapid Review of Psychological and Behavioral Determinants

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rapid review of current evidence examining psychological issues regarding the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials and resistance to these in both human and animal populations was conducted. Specific areas of interest were studies examining psychological determinants of AMR and interventions which attempt to change behavior with regard to AMR in the general population; animals; and fish, in particular. Although there is some evidence of the effectiveness of behavior change in general human populations, there is limited evidence in farmed animals, with a particular dearth in fish farming. We conclude there is an urgent need for more psychological research to identify major barriers and facilitators to change and evaluate the effectiveness of theory-based interventions aimed at reducing AM use in food production animals, including the promotion of alternatives to AMs, such as vaccination.

show abstract

“…The VFD only authorizes the use of medically important antimicrobials in feed and water for therapeutic purposes, under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. In Tennessee (TN), we found that the VFD, and other factors such as producer’ experience and peer support, and antimicrobial drug attributes drive AMU [18, 19]. A previous review that evaluated evidence on the unintended consequences of AMU restrictions in food animals recommended that more research should be conducted to evaluate, document, and report the unintended consequences of interventions targeting AMR reduction [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Tennessee cattle producers regarding the Veterinary Feed Directive

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since January 1, 2017, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has fully implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) final rule aimed at facilitating the judicious use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals. The objective of this study was to identify the common perceptions of Tennessee (TN) cattle producers regarding the VFD. We used a combination of focus groups and survey questionnaires to explore TN cattle producers’ perceptions regarding the VFD. Preliminary findings from seven focus groups of 62 producers were used in the development of the questionnaire sent both online and in-print to rest of cattle producers in TN. The beef focus group participants perceived the VFD: to be a top-down policy; to have led to unregulated access to in-feed antimicrobials; a regulation that has limited the producers’ ability to prevent disease and leading to economic losses; to negatively affect small producers; and to be affected by challenges related to prescription writing and disposal of un-used medicines. The dairy focus group participants perceived the VFD as unnecessary and burdensome, to have affected small producers, and introduced additional costs. Among the survey questionnaire respondents, 35 (15.4%) beef producers and 6 (13.6%) dairy producers respectively were not familiar at all with the VFD. Forty-eight (21.1%) beef producers and 11 (25%) dairy producers were slightly familiar with VFD. Gender was significantly associated (P = 0.02) with the beef producers’ belief in the usefulness of the VFD. Similarly, for dairy producers, herd size was significantly associated (P = 0.002) with their perceptions regarding the usefulness of the VFD. The findings of this study could inform future VFD policy review processes. More awareness regarding the VFD and its benefits is needed among both beef and dairy producers in TN.

show abstract

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

Cited by 43 publications

References 34 publications

A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers

A survey of antimicrobial use practices of Tennessee beef producers

Antimicrobial Resistance in Humans and Animals: Rapid Review of Psychological and Behavioral Determinants

Perceptions of Tennessee cattle producers regarding the Veterinary Feed Directive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About