ArticleJAC-antimicrobial resistance2026
A global analysis of the inclusion of wildlife in national action plans for antimicrobial resistance.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.