ArticleVeterinary record open2021
Restrictive but not restricted: Perspectives on antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance among Swedish dairy veterinarians.
Article in Veterinary record open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'Knowledge, attitudes and practices' survey of Austrian veterinarians' antibiotic use in clinical practice.The Veterinary record · 2026Article
- Trust, agreements, and occasional breakdowns: Veterinarians' perspectives on farmer-veterinarian relationships and use of antimicrobials for Swedish dairy cattle.Journal of dairy science · 2023Article
- Restrictive but not restricted: Perspectives on antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance among Swedish dairy veterinarians.Veterinary record open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIn Europe, the antimicrobial use (AMU) for food-producing animals has decreased rapidly. However, studies indicate that a too strict policy, with too restrictive AMU, is potentially problematic for veterinarians because it threatens animal welfare and creates tensions between farmers and veterinarians. The AMU in Sweden is among the lowest in Europe, and regulation of AMU in farm animals is strict. The aim of our study was to explore how Swedish veterinarians describe the relations between (1) being restrictive with antibiotics due to the risk of AMR and (2) concerns for animal welfare and/or the veterinarian-client relationship.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with 21 veterinarians, working with dairy cattle, were performed. The transcripts were analysed, and a number of dominant patterns which recurred in all, or most of, the interviews were identified.
resultThe interviewed veterinarians described AMR prevention and tackling the threat AMR poses towards public health, as central for their profession and as influencing their everyday practice and decisions on AMU. Importantly, veterinarians described accounting for AMR in everyday practice as fairly unproblematic, both in relation to animal welfare as well as in relation to farmers. The veterinarians generally perceived that they could treat animals with antibiotics when justified, and being restrictive with antibiotics was described as an expression of professional skill and not as challenging as animal welfare. Moreover, they stated that restrictive AMU seldom or never caused conflicts with farmers.
conclusionStrict AMU policy and restrictive AMU do not necessarily put veterinarians in a problematic position where they are caught between conflicting demands and risks.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.