Interventions to change antimicrobial use in livestock: A scoping review and an impact pathway analysis of what works, how, for whom and why

被引:0
|
作者
Guenin, Marie-Jeanne [1 ]
Studnitz, Merete [2 ]
Molia, Sophie [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, UMR ASTRE, Montpellier, France
[2] Int Ctr Res Organ Food Syst, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
关键词
Antibiotic use; Antibiotic resistance; Animal health; Behavioral change; Transition pathway; Impact assessment; PIG PRODUCTION; ANTIBIOTIC USE; REDUCTION; USAGE; VETERINARIANS; AGRICULTURE; ANIMALS; POLICY;
D O I
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106025
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health threat responsible for 700,000 deaths per year worldwide. Antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock contributes to AMR in animal and public health. Therefore, it is essential to implement effective interventions towards better AMU in livestock. However, there is a lack of evidence to inform decision-makers of what works, how, for whom and why and how effective interventions can be adapted to different contexts. We conducted a scoping review and an impact pathway analysis to systematically map the research done in this area and to inform evidence-based and context-appropriate policies. We followed the PRISMA-ScR requirements and searched Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus databases to identify studies in English or French languages, in open access and published between 2000 and 2022. We selected thirty references addressing twenty-eight different interventions that were successful in changing AMU in livestock. We used an impact pathway logic model as an analytic framework to guide the technical aspects of the scoping review process and to identify the complex relationships between outputs, outcomes, impacts and contextual factors. A majority of interventions managed to improve AMU by changing herd and health management practices (ni=18). We identified intermediate outcomes including change in the veterinarian-farmer relationship (ni=7), in knowledge and perception (ni=6), and in motivation and confidence (ni=1). Twenty-two studies recorded positive impacts on animal health and welfare (ni=11), technical performances (ni=9), economic performances (ni=4) and AMR reduction (ni=4). Interventions implemented different strategies including herd and health management support (ni=20), norms and standards (ni=11), informational and educational measures (ni=10), economic support (ni=5). Studies were mainly in European countries and in pig and large ruminants farming. Most interventions targeted farmers or veterinarians but we identified other major and influential actors including authority and governmental organizations, academics and research, organization of producers or veterinarians, herd advisors and technicians, laboratories, and public opinion. Key success factors were knowledge and perception (ni=14), social factors (ni=13), intervention characteristics (ni=11), trajectory and ecosystem of change (ni=11), economic factors (ni=9), herd and health status (ni=8), data access and monitoring (ni=4). This review describes a paucity of impact assessment of interventions towards better AMU in livestock. There is no one-size-fits-all transition pathway but we inform decision-makers about the most successful interventions that work, how, for whom and why. The impact pathway analysis provided a holistic view of the successful change processes and the complex relationships between outputs, outcomes, impacts and contexts.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Evaluating farm-level livestock interventions in low-income countries: a scoping review of what works, how, and why
    Lindahl, Johanna F.
    Mutua, Florence
    Grace, Delia
    [J]. ANIMAL HEALTH RESEARCH REVIEWS, 2020, 21 (02) : 108 - 121
  • [2] What works, for whom and under what circumstances? Using realist methodology to evaluate complex interventions in nursing: A scoping review
    Palm, Rebecca
    Hochmuth, Alexander
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2020, 109
  • [3] Job crafting interventions: what works, for whom, why, and in which contexts? Research protocol for a systematic review with coincidence analysis
    Marta Roczniewska
    Anna Rogala
    Magdalena Marszałek
    Henna Hasson
    Arnold B. Bakker
    Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 12
  • [4] Job crafting interventions: what works, for whom, why, and in which contexts? Research protocol for a systematic review with coincidence analysis
    Roczniewska, Marta
    Rogala, Anna
    Marszalek, Magdalena
    Hasson, Henna
    Bakker, Arnold B. B.
    Schwarz, Ulrica von Thiele
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [5] Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review
    Maben, Jill
    Aunger, Justin Avery
    Abrams, Ruth
    Wright, Judy M.
    Pearson, Mark
    Westbrook, Johanna I.
    Jones, Aled
    Mannion, Russell
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2023, 21 (01)
  • [6] Interventions to address unprofessional behaviours between staff in acute care: what works for whom and why? A realist review
    Jill Maben
    Justin Avery Aunger
    Ruth Abrams
    Judy M. Wright
    Mark Pearson
    Johanna I. Westbrook
    Aled Jones
    Russell Mannion
    [J]. BMC Medicine, 21
  • [7] Virtual wards for people with frailty: what works, for whom, how and why-a rapid realist review
    Westby, Maggie
    Ijaz, Sharea
    Savovic, Jelena
    McLeod, Hugh
    Dawson, Sarah
    Welsh, Tomas
    Le Roux, Hein
    Walsh, Nicola
    Bradley, Natasha
    [J]. AGE AND AGEING, 2024, 53 (03)
  • [8] A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Growth Mindset Interventions: For Whom, How, and Why Might Such Interventions Work?
    Burnette, Jeni L.
    Billingsley, Joseph
    Banks, George C.
    Knouse, Laura E.
    Hoyt, Crystal L.
    Pollack, Jeffrey M.
    Simon, Stefanie
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2023, 149 (3-4) : 174 - 205
  • [9] Pain management interventions of the non-communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review
    Hamadeh, Samira
    Willetts, Georgina
    Garvey, Loretta
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, 2024, 33 (06) : 2050 - 2068
  • [10] What works, why and how? A scoping review and logic model of rural clinical placements for allied health students
    Anna Moran
    Susan Nancarrow
    Catherine Cosgrave
    Anna Griffith
    Rhiannon Memery
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 20