Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper investigates One Health (OH) applied to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to deepen and nuance its conceptual underpinnings and inform effective implementation. We consider how models of OH and AMR wedded to bioscience assumptions of life obscure biosocial complexity and reinforce the misleading assumption that scientific knowledge of AMR is generated outside social systems. With reference to in-depth interviews with medical practitioners, scientists and policy-makers working on AMR in Australia and the UK, we explore accounts of OH action on AMR. We show that the implementation of OH is subject to some fragmentation due to workforce organisation, funding arrangements and the absence of detailed guidance for translating OH into practice. Despite OH aspirations for transdisciplinary cooperation and innovation, human-centrism and somewhat incommensurable professional and scientific views on OH constrain trust in the policy approach and limit effective action. We discuss how, in some settings, OH action on AMR does resemble policy aspirations when emphasis is placed on collaborative humility, a finding that underlines OH's biosocial character. We argue for the development of more robust biosocial models of OH to guide its application to AMR in real world settings.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing public health problem across the world. As the negative consequences of AMR become apparent at local, national and international levels, more attention is being focussed on the variety of mechanisms by which AMR is potentiated. We explore how interactions between pet owners and veterinarians represent a key arena in which AMR-related behaviours can be shaped. METHODS: In depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with pet owners (n = 23) and vets (n = 16) across the UK in 2017. A thematic analysis approach was taken, with inductively gathered data analysed deductively using a behavioural framework to identified key behaviours emerging from participant accounts which were amenable to change. RESULTS: Interactions between vets and pet owners were characterised by misunderstandings and misconceptions around antibiotics by pet owners, and a lack of clarity about the positions and intentions of the other party. Vets and pet owners had differing perceptions of where pressure to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately originated. Vets perceived it was mostly pet owners who pushed for inappropriate antibiotics, whereas pet owners reported they felt it was vets that overprescribed. Low levels of understanding of AMR in general were apparent amongst pet owners and understandings with regard to AMR in pets specifically were almost non-existent in the sample. CONCLUSIONS: Improved use of antibiotics could be assisted by educating the pet owning public and by guideline development for companion animal vets, concurrent development of mandatory legislation, increased consultation time to facilitate better communication, development of vet training on antimicrobial therapy and stewardship led interactions with pet owners, and increased levels of knowledge of pet-related AMR amongst pet owners.