Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29619213›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2018

Pet owner and vet interactions: exploring the drivers of AMR.

Matt Smith, Caroline King, Mark Davis, Adele Dickson, Jeni Park, Fraser Smith, Kay Currie, Paul Flowers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matt Smith1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4154-3477
Caroline King1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Mark Davis2School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800 Australia.
Adele Dickson1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Jeni Park1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Fraser Smith1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Kay Currie1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Paul Flowers1Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland G4 0BA UK.
Glasgow Caledonian University · GBMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health problem across the world. As the negative consequences of AMR become apparent at local, national and international levels, more attention is being focussed on the variety of mechanisms by which AMR is potentiated. We explore how interactions between pet owners and veterinarians represent a key arena in which AMR-related behaviours can be shaped. Methods: In depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with pet owners ( Results: Interactions between vets and pet owners were characterised by misunderstandings and misconceptions around antibiotics by pet owners, and a lack of clarity about the positions and intentions of the other party. Vets and pet owners had differing perceptions of where pressure to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately originated. Vets perceived it was mostly pet owners who pushed for inappropriate antibiotics, whereas pet owners reported they felt it was vets that overprescribed. Low levels of understanding of AMR in general were apparent amongst pet owners and understandings with regard to AMR in pets specifically were almost non-existent in the sample. Conclusions: Improved use of antibiotics could be assisted by educating the pet owning public and by guideline development for companion animal vets, concurrent development of mandatory legislation, increased consultation time to facilitate better communication, development of vet training on antimicrobial therapy and stewardship led interactions with pet owners, and increased levels of knowledge of pet-related AMR amongst pet owners.

Indexed as

Drug ResistancePerceptionAdultAgedAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCommunicationFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOwnershipPetsPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAMRAntibiotic resistanceBehaviourPetsVets

Identifiers

PMID29619213
PMCPMC5879597
OpenAlexW2804150251

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.