ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2025
Farmer field schools as interventions to reduce the need for antimicrobials in agrifood systems: a longitudinal analysis of layer farmer field school graduates and non-graduates in Kenya.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAddressing antimicrobial resistance in agri-food systems requires both AMR-specific interventions, which target factors directly impacting AMR (e.g., prescription regulations) and AMR-sensitive interventions, which target factors indirectly impacting AMR transmission (e.g. biosecurity). An approach that can incorporate both AMR-sensitive and AMR-specific interventions is the Farmer Field School approach (FFS), where farmers meet on a demonstration farm to engage/experiment with best production practices across a production cycle. Here, we assess the impacts FFS on AMR-specific and AMR-sensitive practices through evaluating graduates of layer poultry FFSs held in Kenya between 2020 and 2021, alongside a random sample of non-FFS farmers.
methodsThis longitudinal cross-sectional study was conducted in Kiambu County, Kenya. The farms of 56 FFS graduates and 24 randomly selected non-FFS farmers were visited monthly across an eight-month period in 2022 (N = 610 visits). Data was collected on production costs, biosecurity practices, indicators of flock health, and interactions with the professional veterinary sector. Multiple regression models clustering at the farm level were used to evaluate the impacts of FFS participation.
resultsAcross the eight-month evaluation period, FFS graduates were 5.32 times more likely (95% CI: 1.80–15.75) than non-FFS participants to seek out animal healthcare professionals, 2.60 times more likely (95% CI: 1.11–6.09) to obtain prescriptions, and spent around 7.95 USD (-15.79 - -0.10) less on antimicrobials. FFS participants were four times more likely (95% CI: 1.89–8.47) than non-participants to keep clean drinkers and feeders and 2.5 times more likely (95% CI: 1.08–5.78) to report regularly wearing PPE. Indicators of flock health and costs invested in biosecurity products were not significantly different between FFS participants and non-participants.
conclusionsGiven the role of animal health professionals, prudent antimicrobial use and improved biosecurity in addressing AMR, the FFS approach should be considered a promising approach to mitigate AMR in agri-food systems. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.