Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30616648›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

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

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Understanding Vaccine Hesitancy in Vietnamese Fish Farmers.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors.

John E EkakoroDepartment of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, 2407 River Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA.
Marc CaldwellDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, 2407 River Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA.
Elizabeth B StrandDepartment of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, 2407 River Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA.
Chika C OkaforDepartment of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, 2407 River Drive, Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA. okaforch@utk.edu.

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2016- 36100- 04715The University of Tennessee, Center of Excellence in Livestock Diseases and Human Health (COE) Research Award. R181741223
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increased awareness of antimicrobial resistance in both animals and humans, which has triggered concerns over non-judicious antimicrobial use. In the United States, antimicrobial use in food-producing animals for growth promotion or improved feed efficiency is perceived as non-judicious. To facilitate judicious antimicrobial use, the United States Food and Drug Administration implemented the Veterinary Feed Directive, effective from January 1, 2017. Interventions, such as the VFD, designed to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobials among cattle producers may be more effective if the factors that inform and influence producer AMU practices are addressed. The specific objectives of this study were to determine the following among Tennessee beef cattle producers: (1) the most common drivers for using antimicrobials, (2) the perceived alternatives to antimicrobials, (3) the knowledge and perceptions regarding antimicrobial resistance, and (4) the preferred avenues for receiving information on prudent antimicrobial use. A total of 5 focus group meetings with beef producers were conducted in East, Middle, and West Tennessee. Each focus group was video recorded and thematic analysis was performed using NVivo.

resultsThe factors that producers considered to drive antimicrobial use were the type of cattle operation, disease and animal welfare, economic factors, veterinarian consultation, producer's experience and peer support, Veterinary Feed Directive, and perceived drug efficacy. Vaccination, proper nutrition, and other good management practices were considered alternatives to antimicrobial use. To encourage vaccine use among small producers, participants suggested packaging vaccines into smaller quantities. Antimicrobial resistance was perceived to be a problem affecting animal and public health. Participants suggested additional education for cattle producers on the prudent use of antimicrobials as a measure for improving antimicrobial use. The veterinarian, producer associations and meetings, and county extension agents emerged as trusted avenues for channeling information on prudent antimicrobial use to cattle producers.

conclusionsSeveral factors drive antimicrobial use among cattle producers in Tennessee. Participants generally perceived their antimicrobial use to be discreet and only when necessary. More awareness of drivers for the development of antimicrobial resistance and continuing education on prudent antimicrobial use is needed for Tennessee beef producers.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsCattleCattle DiseasesFarmersHumansMaleTennesseeAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial resistanceAntimicrobial useFocus group discussionsQualitative studyTennessee-beef cattle producersVeterinary feed directive

Identifiers

PMID30616648
PMCPMC6323766

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.