The Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Training on Calf Producers’ Knowledge, Treatment Behaviors and Quantified Antimicrobial Use

Pempek, J.A.; Masterson, Martey; Portillo-Gonzalez, Rafael; Creutzinger, K.C.; Cheng, Ting‐Yu; Habing, Gregory

doi:10.3390/microorganisms10081525

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Herd-specific interventions showed a reduction in AMU. These interventions focussed on implementation of farmers and AHP education, increased health and welfare care (e.g., stable climate, management), biosecurity (external and/or internal), and vaccine strategy (Collineau et al, 2017;Speksnijder et al, 2017;Raasch et al, 2020;Gerber et al, 2021;Gomez et al, 2021;Phu et al, 2021;Pempek et al, 2022;Schreuder et al, 2022). The targeted study groups included cattle farmers, swine farmers, broiler farmers, and AHPs (Collineau et al, 2017;Speksnijder et al, 2017;Raasch et al, 2020;Gerber et al, 2021;Gomez et al, 2021;Phu et al, 2021;Pempek et al, 2022;Schreuder et al, 2022).…”

Section: Reductions In Amu At Herd Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A 50% reduction in AMU for calves was accomplished through didactic presentations, calfside training, and veterinarian feedback for farmers. There was also an increased understanding of AMS and higher correct identification of cases in need of AMU (50%, 73/146) vs. the control group (14.3%, 9/63) (p=0.002) (Rojo-Gimeno et al, 2016;Pempek et al, 2022). This intervention allowed for an integrated approach looking at both AMU but also testing farmer knowledge and not relying on self-reporting.…”

Section: Reductions In Amu At Herd Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A disadvantage of self-reporting is perception may not translate to actual action; just because the participant says they are doing something, it does not mean they are. The other interventions surrounding prescribing habits, including the intervention of prescribing champions and herd health plans, are discussed in other sections (Raasch et al, 2020;Rees et al, 2021;Pempek et al, 2022).…”

Section: Change In Prescribing Habitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). These interventions were described in earlier sections and under the primary outcome measure 'change in AMU of AHPs.…”

Section: Other Reported Aspectsmentioning

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

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: Reductions In Amu At Herd Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reductions In Amu At Herd Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Change In Prescribing Habitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Reported Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 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

“…For instance, Habing et al (2016) reported that only 27% of Midwestern dairy heifer calf producers had a veterinary written protocol that included a case definition to initiate therapy. Further, formal training to diagnose diseases may or may not be provided to producers, leading to large variation between individuals regarding their antimicrobial treatment practices (Pempek et al, 2022). Due to the interconnectedness between the dairy and veal industries, identifying and addressing these knowledge gaps among veal producers would provide evidence to design intervention strategies that modify producer treatment behaviours and improve antimicrobial stewardship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey of antimicrobial use practices on veal farms in the United States

Cheng,

Pempek,

Locke

et al. 2023

Zoonoses and Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neonatal veal calves are highly susceptible to bacterial diseases. Occasional sub‐optimal early‐life care and long‐distance transportation result in high disease burden and antimicrobial treatment incidence. Nonetheless, judicious use of antimicrobials is necessary to mitigate the animal and human health impacts of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this cross‐sectional study was to use a clinical vignette‐based survey approach to evaluate the potential for reduced group or individual therapeutic antimicrobial use. The survey included items probing the adherence to veterinary‐written protocols, antimicrobial use (AMU) at the calf‐ and group‐level, and the treatment actions to case vignettes of calf diarrhoea, pneumonia, and navel infection. The survey was mailed to all veal calf producers within two U.S. production companies (n = 32 producers in Company 1; n = 70 producers in Company 2) in February and December 2019, respectively. The overall survey response rate was 36% (21/59). Although 95% of producers reported having veterinary‐written treatment protocols for diarrhoea, pneumonia, and navel infection, veal producers infrequently (<50% of the time) referenced these protocols. Veal producers were primarily trained for disease identification and treatment by observing other personnel “on‐the‐job” (81%). Veal producers reported a high incidence of calf diarrhoea relative to pneumonia and naval infection, a lower percentage (≤40%) of diarrhoea cases being treated individually with antimicrobials. Using clinical vignettes, our results suggest that AMU decisions among veal producers depend on the severity of clinical signs for diarrhoea and pneumonia, while navel infections are often treated with antimicrobials regardless of sign severity. Nearly two‐thirds of veal producers reported treating uncomplicated cases of diarrhoea (watery stool with normal body temperature, activity, and appetite), more than previously reported from dairy producers (37.1%). Findings from this survey suggest that calf producer‐focused training to guide antimicrobial treatment decisions and improve producer adherence to veterinary‐written treatment protocols may have important impacts on judicious antimicrobial use.

show abstract

Update to UK calf management and housing strategies

Mahendran

2024

Livestock

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews calf-rearing practices and housing on UK dairy farms, with a focus on optimising calf health, welfare and production. Key findings include the continued underfeeding of milk. In terms of housing, there were benefits to pairing, over individual housing, with group housing using automated milk feeders showing potential but requiring careful management of weaning and social interactions. Environmental assessments across different housing types revealed challenges in maintaining optimal conditions, with hutches exhibiting the most extreme temperatures and sheds having higher levels of airborne contaminants. Providing adequate milk, appropriate housing and social conditions, and careful management, particularly during weaning, are crucial for successful calf rearing.

show abstract

The Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Training on Calf Producers’ Knowledge, Treatment Behaviors and Quantified Antimicrobial Use

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Antimicrobial resistance interventions in the animal sector: scoping review

Antimicrobial resistance interventions in the animal sector: scoping review

A survey of antimicrobial use practices on veal farms in the United States

Update to UK calf management and housing strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About