Factors Associated with Antimicrobial Stewardship Practices on California Dairies: One Year Post Senate Bill 27

Abdelfattah, Essam M.; Ekong, Pius S.; Okello, Emmanuel; Williams, D. E.; Karle, Betsy M.; Lehenbauer, Terry W.; Aly, Sharif S.

doi:10.3390/antibiotics11020165

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The 'California State Bill 27' states that usage of antimicrobials of medical importance for humans for livestock requires a prescription. Assessment of this intervention indicated selfreported change in disease management including increased use of diagnostics (29.4%) and an increased use of alternatives to antimicrobials (26.8%) (Abdelfattah et al, 2022). This study was limited by a low response rate and possible response bias.…”

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Change in AMS through legislation was reported. Two examples are the 'California State Bill 27' aimed at farmers in California, USA (Abdelfattah et al, 2022), and Regulation (EU) 2019/6 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC aimed at both farmers and AHPs in Europe (The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, n.d.). The 'California State Bill 27' states that usage of antimicrobials of medical importance for humans for livestock requires a prescription.…”

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As mentioned previously, self-reporting change may not translate to action. There was no report on AMU suggesting it was not evident whether self-reported change resulted in action (Abdelfattah et al, 2022). The latter, EU regulation, bans medication through feed or to groups for livestock use (The European Parliament and The Council of the European Union, n.d. ).…”

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other aspects were reported under the primary outcome measure, change in uptake and use of AMS by AHPs and farmers. The first aspect was improving sanitation (i.e., improving hand washing and biosecurity) in both AHPs in Uganda and California (Musoke et al, 2020;Abdelfattah et al, 2022). The second aspect was improving dosage accuracy in cattle farmers in Ohio, USA (Pempek et al, 2022).…”

Section: Other Reported Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interventions reported under this category illustrated how both voluntary programmes and legislation can create an impact on AMS. However, it is important to note the impact of many of these interventions were self-reported (Musoke et al, 2020;Abdelfattah et al, 2022). This carries the risk of response bias.…”

Section: Summary Of Change In Uptake and Use Of Ams By Ahps And Farmersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Antimicrobial resistance interventions in the animal sector: scoping review

Jacobsen,

Ogden,

Ekiri

2023

Front. Antibiot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals are considered key contributors to the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). However, little is known about the existing AMR interventions in the animal sector. This scoping review examines the existing evidence on AMR interventions aimed at livestock, animal health professionals (AHPs), and farmers, while reviewing their impact, limitations, gaps, and lessons for future use. The scoping review was conducted following guidelines from the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The databases, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and international organisations’ websites (WHO, FAO, WOAH) were searched for articles reporting interventions targeting livestock, farmers, and AHPs. Interventions were categorised based on seven pre-defined primary measures including: change in antimicrobial use (AMU) practices; change in the uptake of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS); change in development of AMR; change in knowledge of appropriate AMU practices, AMR, and AMS; change in attitudes and perceptions concerning AMU, AMR, and AMS; and surveillance strategies. In total, ninety three sources were included: 66 studies, 20 reports, and 7 webpages. The reviewed interventions focused mostly on AMU practices (22/90), AMS uptake (8/90), and reduction of bacterial or resistant strains (30/90). Changes in knowledge (14/90) and attitude (1/90) were less frequently assessed and were often implicit. Most interventions were conducted within a select country (83/90) and 7/90 were at a global level. Only 19% (16/83) of interventions were implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and most were at herd level with many self-reporting changes. Most of the interventions that focused on surveillance strategies (30/83) were implemented in high-income countries (62/83). Only one study investigated the financial implications of the intervention. The study findings provide an overview of existing AMR interventions and insights into the gaps which can be addressed to guide future interventions and research. A focus on developing, implementing and evaluating interventions in LMICs coupled with the use of objective outcome measures (e.g., measurable outcomes vs. self-reporting) will improve our understanding of the impact of interventions in these settings. Finally, assessing the financial benefits of interventions is necessary to inform feasibility and to encourage uptake of interventions aimed at reducing AMR in the animal health sector.

show abstract

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Change Of Ams Through Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Reported Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Change In Uptake and Use Of Ams By Ahps And Farmersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Antimicrobial resistance interventions in the animal sector: scoping review

Jacobsen,

Ogden,

Ekiri

2023

Front. Antibiot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Antibiotic responsibility and agricultural publics: diverse stakeholder perceptions of antibiotic use in animal agriculture

Lansing

Barrett

2023

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines diverse perspectives around the concept of responsibility concerning antibiotic use in animal agriculture. Antibiotic use in agriculture has been identified as a source of antimicrobial resistance, one of the largest public health threats today. In the United States, efforts to curb antibiotic use in farming draws on a diverse range of actors—including farmers, veterinarians, consumers, and public health advocates—and relies on a mix of industry standards and federal guidelines around responsible use. The paper selects a similarly diverse range of people and employs Q methodology to query the points of disagreement and consensus around the practices that constitute responsible antibiotic use in animal agriculture, and who is responsible for antimicrobial resistance. We find a diverse mix of actor types across three discourses, but with clear differences between farmers and public health advocates. We also argue that, in some cases, points of disagreement and agreement are often based on different interpretations of ideas, indicating points of common ground where there might appear to be disagreement, and areas of difference where there appears to be agreement. We argue that these flexible interpretations of some of the key issues around antibiotic use are nevertheless grounded in durable differences in views of what agriculture is and what it should be.

show abstract