A participatory approach for building ex ante impact pathways towards a prudent use of antimicrobials in pig and poultry sectors in France

Participatory identification of the causes of antimicrobial use and how they may vary according to differences in sector structure: The case of the Flemish pork and veal sectors

The increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to human health has prompted many countries to adopt national action plans to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) in farm animals. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the factors driving AMU in farm animals. While previous research has focused on gaining a better understanding of AMU from the perspective of farmers and veterinarians, less emphasis has been placed on examining the systemic and contextual factors that influence AMU from multiple viewpoints within the food supply chain. To this end, this paper describes a participatory approach involving multiple stakeholders from two distinct livestock sectors to identify the underlying drivers of AMU and explore their case-specificity. For each sector, we identified causes of AMU during four online focus groups, by co-creating a "problem tree", which resulted in the identification of over 50 technical, economic, regulatory, and sociocultural causes per sector and exploration of causal links. Following this, we analysed the focus group discussion through a content analysis and clustered causes of AMU that were related into 17 categories (i.e. main drivers of AMU), that we then classified as drivers of AMU at sector level or drivers of AMU at farm level. Finally, we compared the two sectors by assessing whether the generated categories (i.e. main drivers for AMU) had been discussed for both sectors and, if so, whether they involved the same causes and had the same implications. Through our analysis, we gained a better understanding of several main drivers of AMU at sector level, that result from systemic and/or contextual causes. As these cannot always be addressed by farmers and/or their veterinarian, we suggest that interventions should also target other actors related to these causes or consider them to help implement certain strategies. Furthermore, based on the results of our comparative analysis, we suggest that systemic structural differences, such as size and level of supply chain integration/fragmentation, may lead to differences in how animal health management is approached. This in turn may influence AMU's decision-making and the effectiveness of interventions, if they are generic and not tailored to the specificities of the sector.

Strategies to reduce antimicrobials in livestock and aquaculture, and their impact under field conditions: a structured scoping literature review

Antimicrobial resistance is a pandemic problem, causing substantial health and economic burdens. Antimicrobials are extensively used in livestock and aquaculture, exacerbating this global threat. Fostering the prudent use of antimicrobials will safeguard animal and human health. A lack of knowledge about alternatives to replace antimicrobials, and their effectiveness under field conditions, hampers changes in farming practices. This work aimed to understand the impact of strategies to reduce antimicrobial usage (AMU) in livestock and aquaculture, under field conditions, using a structured scoping literature review. The Extension for Scoping Reviews of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA-ScR) were followed and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time and Setting (PICOTS) framework used. Articles were identified from CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE and Scopus. A total of 7505 unique research articles were identified, 926 of which were eligible for full-text assessment; 203 articles were included in data extraction. Given heterogeneity across articles in the way alternatives to antimicrobials or interventions against their usage were described, there was a need to standardize these by grouping them in categories. There were differences in the impacts of the strategies between and within species; this highlights the absence of a 'one-size-fits-all' solution. Nevertheless, some options seem more promising than others, as their impacts were consistently equivalent or positive when compared with animal performance using antimicrobials. This was particularly the case for bioactive protein and peptides, and feed/water management. The outcomes of this work provide data to inform cost-effectiveness assessments of strategies to reduce AMU.