Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33941278›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal2021

Why do Irish pig farmers use medications? Barriers for effective reduction of antimicrobials in Irish pig production.

Alessia Diana, Sylvia Snijders, Alison Rieple, Laura Ann Boyle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The potential ecological risk of veterinary pharmaceuticals from swine wastewater on freshwater aquatic environment.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2023
    Article
  6. Risk Factors for Antimicrobial Use on Irish Pig Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Alessia DianaPig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Sylvia SnijdersWestminster Business School, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5LS, UK.
Alison RiepleWestminster Business School, University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5LS, UK.
Laura Ann BoylePig Development Department, Teagasc Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland. laura.boyle@teagasc.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-1776
University of Westminster · GBTeagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IEUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

WELPIG project, Teagasc 6497
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance, it is critical to understand the barriers to the uptake of strategies for the reduction of antimicrobial use (AMU) in the pig industry. In several EU countries, factors such as education level, habits and social pressures are recognised as affecting farmers' decision-making process in relation to AMU. However, there is a lack of information on the Irish scenario. The aim of this study was to investigate pig farmers' perspectives and their behaviour towards AMU to identify potential barriers to effectively reduce AMU in Irish pig production. We conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 30 pig farmers, 5 pig veterinarians and 4 focus groups of pig farm personnel. We employed qualitative analyses to explore the objective of the study.

resultsQualitative analysis revealed six convergent themes as potential barriers: perceptions about the need for AMU on farm, concept of animal welfare and associated management practices, legislation, culture, economics and standards of communication/type of advice-network. Overall, pig farmers believed that there is poor communication between stakeholders (i.e. farmers, vets and advisors) and a lack of reliable people to approach for advice. They considered themselves as operating responsibly in terms of AMU compared to their national and international colleagues and expressed the importance of a so-called 'Irish solution' to the problem of AMU because it was associated with what 'has always been done' and was therefore considered reliable and safe.

conclusionsBarriers and challenges were in line with those identified in other EU countries highlighting similarities in behavioural and attitudinal patterns among pig farmers. Overall, farmers appeared to be more likely to rely on previous experiences or to wait for an imposed change (e.g. legislation) instead of taking personal action. Thus, considerable behavioural and attitudinal changes are needed to adopt a more responsible AMU in Irish pig production and to develop effective intervention strategies.

Indexed as

Advice-networkAnimal welfareAntimicrobialsAntimicrobial stewardshipBarriersBehavioural changeFarmer attitudeHabitsSwine

Identifiers

PMID33941278
PMCPMC8091703
OpenAlexW3157883471

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.