Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34879112›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Consumer perceptions of antimicrobial use in animal husbandry: A scoping review.

Jaime R Barrett, Gabriel K Innes, Kelly A Johnson, Guillaume Lhermie, Renata Ivanek, Amelia Greiner Safi, David Lansing

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Systematic mapping of threats to U.S. beef production.Translational animal science · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect of fenugreek seeds andFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jaime R BarrettDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Gabriel K InnesDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8206-3608
Kelly A JohnsonFlower-Sprecher Veterinary Library, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
Guillaume LhermieDepartment of Production Animal Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Renata IvanekDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
Amelia Greiner SafiDepartment of Public and Planetary Health, College of Veterinary Medicine & Department of Communication, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America.
David LansingDepartment of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4586-7893
Cornell University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore County · USCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement · FRRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial use in animal agriculture is often perceived to play a role in the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance. Increased consumer awareness of this issue places pressure on animal husbandry to adopt policies to reduce or eliminate antimicrobial use. We use a scoping review methodology to assess research on consumer perceptions of antimicrobial drugs in meat products in the United States, Canada, or the European Union. Evaluating peer-reviewed and grey literature, we included studies for assessment if they met these topical and geographic requirements, involved primary data collection, and were originally published in English. Our screening process identified 124 relevant studies. Three reviewers jointly developed a data charting form and independently charted the contents of the studies. Of the 105 studies that measured consumer concern, 77.1% found that consumers were concerned about antimicrobial use in meat production. A minority of studies (29.8% of all studies) queried why consumers hold these views. These studies found human health and animal welfare were the main reasons for concern. Antimicrobial resistance rarely registered as an explicit reason for concern. A smaller group of studies (23.3%) measured the personal characteristics of consumers that expressed concern about antimicrobials. Among these studies, the most common and consistent features of these consumers were gender, age, income, and education. Regarding the methodology used, studies tended to be dominated by either willingness-to-pay studies or Likert scale questionnaires (73.64% of all studies). We recommend consideration of qualitative research into consumer views on this topic, which may provide new perspectives that explain consumer decision-making and mentality that are lacking in the literature. In addition, more research into the difference between what consumers claim is of concern and their ultimate purchasing decisions would be especially valuable.

Indexed as

Public OpinionAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsConsumer BehaviorMeatPerceptionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID34879112
PMCPMC8654221
OpenAlexW4200336211

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.