ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Stakeholder perceptions of antimicrobial resistance governance in livestock production: a cross-sectional study from North-Central Nigeria.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in food animal production poses a significant public health and agricultural challenge in Nigeria, driven by antimicrobial misuse, weak regulatory enforcement, and limited veterinary infrastructure. This cross-sectional study was conducted January-July 2025 across seven North-Central Nigerian states, assessed self-reported awareness, self-rated knowledge, perceptions, and implementation of AMR interventions among 800 stakeholders across five professional groups. Data were collected via online and in-person questionnaires and analysed descriptively with chi-square tests. Awareness of AMR was high (90.5%; n = 724), with 95.4% (n = 763) recognising it as a public health concern; however, only 17.9% (n = 143) self-rated their knowledge as excellent, significantly associated with profession (χ²=12.52, df = 12, p = 0.01) and education level (χ²=10.27, df = 9, p = 0.02). The most frequently perceived drivers of AMR were poor biosecurity (75.5%), weak veterinary oversight (75.0%), counterfeit drugs (73.9%), and antimicrobial overuse (72.9%), all varying significantly by profession (χ²=6.81-10.69, df = 4, p < 0.05). Education/awareness campaigns were most frequently selected as the most effective intervention (24.4%), with intervention rankings differing significantly by profession (χ²=13.62, df = 16, p < 0.01) and state (χ²=21.02, df = 24, p < 0.01). Awareness of the Federal AMR Committee varied markedly by profession (57.9% overall; χ²=167.36, df = 4, p < 0.001), highest among veterinarians (89.0%). Overall, 60.5% (n = 484) considered current regulations insufficient, differing significantly by profession (χ²=5.03, df = 8, p = 0.01). These findings suggest that while national-level AMR governance structures are recognised and valued, their perceived impact is limited by gaps in sub-national capacity and implementation. Strengthening local-level resources, regulatory enforcement, and targeted training may help translate policy into practice, addressing gaps in awareness, knowledge, and implementation capacity.
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.