ArticlePloS one2024
University student perspectives on antimicrobial peptide use in farm animals.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing awareness of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in livestock production has led to calls for the development of alternatives such as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that are also able to combat infectious diseases in farm animals. A critical step in the development of AMPs is to understand people's perspectives towards this technology to avoid misalignment with societal expectations. The aim of this study was to investigate university student perspectives of AMP applications in farm animals as alternatives to antibiotic use. We interviewed 20 university students and, using thematic analysis, identified six themes: 1) Initial knowledge, including knowledge of antibiotics and initial impressions of AMPs; 2) Human wellbeing, including the effects of food and animal health on public health, the importance of addressing AMR, and cost for farmers; 3) Animal welfare, including animal health, welfare, and production, and continuation of contentious farm practices; 4) Perceived naturalness of AMPs, including biocompatibility and comparing same and different species transfer of biological material; 5) Unforeseen consequences of AMPs, and the importance of researching unintended consequences of novel technologies; and 6) Public acceptance of AMPs, including trust and lack of awareness. In summary, participants viewed AMPs positively as an alternative to antibiotic use in farm animals to address AMR. However, key concerns centered around unintended harmful effects for food systems, public health, and animal welfare, which may impact public acceptance of AMPs in animal agriculture.
Indexed as
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.