Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30968033›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2019

Assessment of Drivers of Antimicrobial Usage in Poultry Farms in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam: A Combined Participatory Epidemiology and Q-Sorting Approach.

Dinh Bao Truong, Hoang Phu Doan, Vinh Khanh Doan Tran, Van Cuong Nguyen, Tuan Kiet Bach, Chalalai Rueanghiran, Aurélie Binot, Flavie L Goutard, Guy Thwaites, Juan Carrique-Mas and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Dinh Bao TruongOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Hoang Phu DoanFaculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Vinh Khanh Doan TranFaculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Van Cuong NguyenOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Tuan Kiet BachSub Department of Animal Health and Production, Cao Lãnh, Vietnam.
Chalalai RueanghiranDepartment of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Aurélie BinotASTRE, CIRAD, INRA, University Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Flavie L GoutardFaculty Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Guy ThwaitesOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Juan Carrique-MasOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.
Jonathan RushtonInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Nong Lam University Ho Chi Minh City · VNOxford University Clinical Research Unit · VNAnimal, Santé, Territoires, Risques et Ecosystèmes · FRCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement · FRKasetsart University · THUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, poultry farmers use high amounts of antimicrobials, but little is known about the drivers that influence this usage. We aimed to identify these drivers using a novel approach that combined participatory epidemiology (PE) and Q-sorting (a methodology that allows the analysis of the subjectivity of individuals facing a common phenomenon). A total of 26 semi-structured collective interviews were conducted with 125 farmers representative of the most common farming systems in the area (chickens, meat ducks, and mobile grazing ducks), as well as with 73 farmers' advisors [veterinarians, veterinary drug shop owners, and government veterinarians/commune animal health workers (CAHWs)] in five districts of Dong Thap province (Mekong Delta). Through these interviews, 46 statements related to the antimicrobials' perceived reliability, costs, and impact on flock health were created. These statements were then investigated on 54 individuals (28 farmers and 26 farmers' advisors) using Q-sorting interviews. Farmers generally indicated a higher propensity for antimicrobial usage (AMU) should their flocks encounter bacterial infections (75.0-78.6%) compared with viral infections (8.3-66.7%). The most trusted sources of advice to farmers were, in decreasing order: government veterinarian/CAHWs, their own knowledge/experience, veterinary drug shop owners, and sales persons from pharmaceutical and feed companies. The highest peak of AMU took place in the early phase of the production cycle. Farmers and their advisors showed considerable heterogeneity of attitudes with regards to AMU, with, respectively, four and three discourses representing their views on AMU. Overall, farmers regarded the cost of AMU cheaper than other disease management practices implemented on their farms. However, they also believed that even though these measures were more expensive, they would also lead to more effective disease prevention. A key recommendation from this finding would be for the veterinary authorities to implement long-term sustainable training programs aiming at reducing farmers' reliance on antimicrobials.

Indexed as

antimicrobial usagediscoursefarmers' attitudeparticipatory epidemiologyQ-sorting

Identifiers

PMID30968033
PMCPMC6442645
OpenAlexW2938609152

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.