Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42267317›Full record

ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026

A global analysis of the inclusion of wildlife in national action plans for antimicrobial resistance.

Nicholas Bor, Jessica Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Nicholas BorDivision of Global Agriculture and Food Systems, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-7828-6534
Jessica MitchellDivision of Global Agriculture and Food Systems, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-4630

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing global health threat to humans, domestic animals and wildlife. In response, the WHO endorsed the AMR Global Action Plan in 2015 to guide the development of national action plans (NAPs). NAPs articulate priorities, sectoral roles and implementation strategies to address AMR. Although the wildlife sector has been noted to be minimally included in these documents, the extent and nature of its inclusion remain unclear. This is concerning given wildlife's role at the human-animal-environment interface in AMR dynamics. Objectives: To assess the extent and context of wildlife inclusion in AMR NAPs. Methods: We reviewed 177 AMR NAPs available in the WHO library. Each document was searched for the terms 'wildlife' or 'wild', and the extracted excerpts were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis to determine the context in which wildlife was referenced. Results: Wildlife was minimally included in the analysed NAPs, with only 11% (20/177) containing wildlife-related references. Fifty-eight mentions were identified across documents, appearing within One Health definitions, proposed actions, document headings and governance structures. Surveillance was the most proposed wildlife-related activity; however, detailed implementation strategies were absent. Uganda was the only country whose NAP explicitly incorporated a wildlife-associated institution within its governance framework. Conclusions: Wildlife is minimally included in AMR NAPs, with references predominantly conceptual rather than operational. The absence of defined implementation mechanisms undermines effective One Health integration and risks weakening comprehensive AMR responses.

Identifiers

PMID42267317
PMCPMC13245393

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.