Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34827264›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Pet Owners and Antibiotics: Knowledge, Opinions, Expectations, and Communication Preferences.

Ri Scarborough, Laura Hardefeldt, Glenn Browning, Kirsten Bailey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genomic analysis and functional properties ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ri ScarboroughAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7021-0893
Laura HardefeldtAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5780-7567
Glenn BrowningAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0903-2469
Kirsten BaileyAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Department of Veterinary Biosciences, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1079625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the important role of antimicrobial use in companion animals in the global challenge presented by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), very few studies have quantified pet owner factors that can contribute to suboptimal veterinary antimicrobial use. We conducted an online survey of pet owners, asking about their experiences with veterinarians, their opinions on antibiotic use and knowledge of antibiotics, and their communication preferences regarding judicious prescribing. Just over half (54%) of the 558 pet owners had received antibiotics for their pet at their last non-routine veterinary consultation and most owners were happy (83%) with the antibiotic prescribing decision of their veterinarian. A quarter (25%) indicated that they had been surprised, disappointed or frustrated when a veterinarian had not given their pet antibiotics; 15% had explicitly requested them. Owners placed a higher priority on their pet receiving the most effective treatment than on treatment being cheap or convenient. Most respondents recognized the limitations of antibiotic therapy and the risks associated with antibiotic use, but 50% believed the risks were confined to the treated animal; only a minority was aware of inter-species transfer of bacteria. Pet owners indicated that they would find judicious prescribing messages focused on the direct risks of antibiotics to their pet more compelling than those about public health. Our findings suggest that veterinary communications about responsible antibiotic use should focus on pet owners' priorities and address or bypass their gaps in understanding regarding antibiotic resistance.

Indexed as

antimicrobialcatdelayed prescribingdogeducationownerresistancestewardshipsurveyveterinary

Identifiers

PMID34827264
PMCPMC8615269
OpenAlexW3209432289

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.