Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38496339›Full record

ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024

Economic assessment of an intervention strategy to reduce antimicrobial usage in small-scale chicken farms in Vietnam.

Truong Dinh Bao, Nguyen Van Cuong, Nguyen Nhu Mai, Le Thi Thu Ha, Doan Hoang Phu, Bach Tuan Kiet, Juan Carrique-Mas, Jonathan Rushton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Truong Dinh BaoFaculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, University of Agriculture and Forestry, HCMC, Viet Nam.
Nguyen Van CuongOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam.
Nguyen Nhu MaiFaculty of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, University of Agriculture and Forestry, HCMC, Viet Nam.
Le Thi Thu HaCIRAD, UMR ASTRE, Hanoi, Viet Nam.
Doan Hoang PhuOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam.
Bach Tuan KietSub Department of Animal Health and Production, Cao Lanh, Viet Nam.
Juan Carrique-MasOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam.
Jonathan RushtonInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Oxford University Clinical Research Unit · VNUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobials are a core aspect of most livestock production systems, especially in low-and middle-income countries. They underpin the efficient use of scarce feed resources and stabilize returns on capital and labor inputs. Antimicrobial use (AMU) contributes to the production of healthy animals, yet AMU in livestock is linked to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animals, humans and the environment. The Vietnamese Platform for Antimicrobial Reduction in Chicken Production was implemented during 2016-2019 and was one of Southeast Asia's first interventions focused on AMU reductions in livestock production. The project targeted small-scale commercial poultry farms in the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam using a "randomized before-and-after controlled" study design. It provided farmers with a locally adapted support service (farmer training plan, advisory visits, biosecurity, and antimicrobial replacement products) to help them reduce their reliance on antimicrobials. A partial budget analysis was performed comparing the control group (status-quo) and intervention group (alternative). The median net farm-level benefit of the intervention strategies with the project's support was VND 6.78 million (interquartile range (IR) VND -71.9-89 million) per farm. Without project support the benefit was reduced to VND 5.1 million (IR VND -69.1-87.2 million) to VND 5.3 million (IR -VND 68.9-87.5 million) depending on the antimicrobial alternative product used. At the project level with a focus on AMU and its reduction, subsequently influence on the resistance reduction, our results showed that achieving resistance reduction benefits with the current knowledge and technologies required investment of at least VND 9.1 million (US$ 395.10) per farm during the project's lifetime. The results highlight the positive net profit for the majority of enrolled farms and a reasonable investments from the project. The recommendation focuses on the implementation of policies on financial support, legislation, and information as potential solutions to facilitate the application of intervention strategies to reduce AMU in poultry production.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial usageBenefit cost analysisEconomic modelsLocally adapted support servicePartial budget analysisPoultry production

Identifiers

PMID38496339
PMCPMC10943031
OpenAlexW4392398020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.