Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27516473›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2016

Understanding the culture of antimicrobial prescribing in agriculture: a qualitative study of UK pig veterinary surgeons.

L A Coyne, S M Latham, N J Williams, S Dawson, I J Donald, R B Pearson, R F Smith, G L Pinchbeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The biological functions ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Why Veterinarians (Do Not) Adhere to the Clinical PracticeAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

L A CoyneDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK l.a.coyne@liverpool.ac.uk.
S M LathamDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
N J WilliamsDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
S DawsonSchool of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
I J DonaldInstitute of Psychology, Health & Society, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK.
R B PearsonThe George Pig Practice, High Street, Malmesbury, Wiltshire SN16 9AU, UK.
R F SmithSchool of Veterinary Science, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.
G L PinchbeckDepartment of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston CH64 7TE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals has been linked with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in bacterial populations, with consequences for animal and public health. This study explored the underpinning drivers, motivators and reasoning behind prescribing decisions made by veterinary surgeons working in the UK pig industry.

methodsA qualitative interview study was conducted with 21 veterinary surgeons purposively selected from all UK pig veterinary surgeons. Thematic analysis was used to analyse transcripts.

resultsEnsuring optimum pig health and welfare was described as a driver for antimicrobial use by many veterinary surgeons and was considered a professional and moral obligation. Veterinary surgeons also exhibited a strong sense of social responsibility over the need to ensure that antimicrobial use was responsible. A close relationship between management practices, health and economics was evident, with improvements in management commonly identified as being potential routes to reduce antimicrobial usage; however, these were not always considered economically viable. The relationship with clients was identified as being a source of professional stress for practitioners due to pressure from farmers requesting antimicrobial prescriptions, and concern over poor compliance of antimicrobial administration by some farmers.

conclusionsThe drivers behind prescribing decisions by veterinary surgeons were complex and diverse. A combination of education, improving communication between veterinary surgeons and farmers, and changes in regulations, in farm management and in consumer/retailer demands may all be needed to ensure that antimicrobial prescribing is optimal and to achieve significant reductions in use.

Indexed as

Drug UtilizationSurgeonsAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsInterviews as TopicSwineSwine DiseasesUnited KingdomVeterinary MedicineAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID27516473
PMCPMC5079303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.