Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407887›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Understanding antibiotic use for pig farming in Thailand: a qualitative study.

Angkana Lekagul, Viroj Tangcharoensathien, Marco Liverani, Anne Mills, Jonathan Rushton, Shunmay Yeung

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Role of C17 fengycin B fromApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Angkana LekagulLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. angkana@ihpp.thaigov.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-9028
Viroj TangcharoensathienInternational Health Policy Programme, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Marco LiveraniLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Anne MillsLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jonathan RushtonInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Shunmay YeungLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBMinistry of Public Health · THMahidol University · THUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR), recognised as a serious and growing threat to global health, is promoted by multiple drivers, including antibiotic use in the livestock sector. Thus, understanding factors influencing antibiotic use in livestock production is essential to the design and implementation of effective interventions to reduce AMR. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences and views of the key actors associated with the use of antibiotics for pig farming in Thailand, from local farmers to officers in central government institutions.

methodsA total of 31 in-depth interviews were conducted with different categories of actors: pig farmers (n = 13), drug retailers (n = 5), veterinarians (n = 7), government officers (n = 3) and representatives of animal and human health associations (n = 2). Themes emerging from the interviews were identified and explored using thematic analysis. In addition, direct observations were conducted in the pig farms.

resultsThe findings highlight the multi-faceted nature of the views and practices that may contribute to misuse or overuse of antibiotics in the study locations, including misconceptions about the nature of antibiotics and AMR (particularly among smallholders), lack of facilities and financial means to establish an antibiotic-free farm, lack of sufficient training on AMR and antibiotic prescribing for veterinarians, the profit motive of pharmaceutical companies and their ties to farm consultants, and lack of sufficient regulatory oversight.

conclusionsOur study indicates a clear need to improve antibiotic use for pig production in Thailand. Farmers need better access to veterinary services and reliable information about animal health needs and antibiotics. Innovative investments in biosecurity could improve farm management and decrease reliance on antibiotics, although the cost of these interventions should be low to ensure wide uptake in the livestock sector. Lastly, further development of professional training and clinical guidelines, and the establishment of a code of conduct, would help improve antibiotic dispensing practices.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSwineAdultAgedAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipFarmersFarmsFemaleGovernment EmployeesHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID33407887
PMCPMC7789695
OpenAlexW3119069672

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.