What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics

Antimicrobial use in companion animals is a largely overlooked contributor to the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. Humans and companion animals share living spaces and some classes of antimicrobials, including those categorised as Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPC...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Preventive veterinary medicine 2020-10, Vol.183, p.105117-105117, Article 105117
Hauptverfasser: Tompson, Alice C., Chandler, Clare I.R., Mateus, Ana L.P., O’Neill, Dan G., Chang, Yui-Mei, Brodbelt, Dave C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 105117
container_issue
container_start_page 105117
container_title Preventive veterinary medicine
container_volume 183
creator Tompson, Alice C.
Chandler, Clare I.R.
Mateus, Ana L.P.
O’Neill, Dan G.
Chang, Yui-Mei
Brodbelt, Dave C.
description Antimicrobial use in companion animals is a largely overlooked contributor to the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. Humans and companion animals share living spaces and some classes of antimicrobials, including those categorised as Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPCIAs). Veterinary guidelines recommend that these agents are not used as routine first line treatment and their frequent deployment could offer a surrogate measure of ‘inappropriate’ antimicrobial use. Anthropological methods provide a complementary means to understand how medicines use makes sense ‘on-the-ground’ and situated in the broader social context. This mixed-methods study sought to investigate antimicrobial use in companion animals whilst considering the organisational context in which increasing numbers of veterinarians work. Its aims were to i) to epidemiologically analyse the variation in the percentage of antimicrobial events comprising of HPCIAs in companion animal dogs attending UK clinics belonging to large veterinary groups and, ii) to analyse how the organisational structure of companion animal practice influences antimicrobial use, based on insight gained from anthropological fieldwork. A VetCompassTM dataset composed of 468,665 antimicrobial dispensing events in 240,998 dogs from June 2012 to June 2014 was analysed. A hierarchical model for HPCIA usage was built using a backwards elimination approach with clinic and dog identity numbers included as random effects, whilst veterinary group, age quartile, breed and clinic region were included as fixed effects. The largest odds ratio of an antimicrobial event comprising of a HPCIA by veterinary group was 7.34 (95% confidence interval 5.14 – 10.49), compared to the lowest group (p 
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105117
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2440467405</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167587720300854</els_id><sourcerecordid>2440467405</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-c8e9a96bca722380c5eee1dbf5f04d0a2f45105ff4ef9ab0fa2a88ee5842683b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEFP3DAQha0KVLa0f4H6yCVb23Fi54RWqNCqSL2AerQcewyzTeLFzq66_75eLXDlZGn8vXnzHiFfOVtyxttv6-UmwQ7mEfxSMHGYNpyrD2TBtaorrnh7QhaFVFWjlTojn3JeM8baVjcfyVktdMc6rhfk758nO1OfcAeZ2mnGEV2KPdqBFofsEvY4PdIQE3Vx3NgJ41Q4HO2Qr-iKjvgPfDXC_BR9pnne-j2NgT78ouU6SDjZtKduwAld_kxOQ5HBl5f3nDzcfL-__lHd_b79eb26q5wUbK6chs52be-sEqLWzDUAwH0fmsCkZ1YE2ZS4IUgIne1ZsMJqDdBoKVpd9_U5uTzu3aT4vIU8mxGzg2GwE8RtNkJKJlslWVNQdURL6JwTBLNJJVvaG87MoWmzNm9Nm0PT5th0UV68mGz7w9-r7rXaAqyOAJSoO4RkskOYHHhM4GbjI75r8h_12ZYj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2440467405</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Tompson, Alice C. ; Chandler, Clare I.R. ; Mateus, Ana L.P. ; O’Neill, Dan G. ; Chang, Yui-Mei ; Brodbelt, Dave C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Tompson, Alice C. ; Chandler, Clare I.R. ; Mateus, Ana L.P. ; O’Neill, Dan G. ; Chang, Yui-Mei ; Brodbelt, Dave C.</creatorcontrib><description>Antimicrobial use in companion animals is a largely overlooked contributor to the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. Humans and companion animals share living spaces and some classes of antimicrobials, including those categorised as Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPCIAs). Veterinary guidelines recommend that these agents are not used as routine first line treatment and their frequent deployment could offer a surrogate measure of ‘inappropriate’ antimicrobial use. Anthropological methods provide a complementary means to understand how medicines use makes sense ‘on-the-ground’ and situated in the broader social context. This mixed-methods study sought to investigate antimicrobial use in companion animals whilst considering the organisational context in which increasing numbers of veterinarians work. Its aims were to i) to epidemiologically analyse the variation in the percentage of antimicrobial events comprising of HPCIAs in companion animal dogs attending UK clinics belonging to large veterinary groups and, ii) to analyse how the organisational structure of companion animal practice influences antimicrobial use, based on insight gained from anthropological fieldwork. A VetCompassTM dataset composed of 468,665 antimicrobial dispensing events in 240,998 dogs from June 2012 to June 2014 was analysed. A hierarchical model for HPCIA usage was built using a backwards elimination approach with clinic and dog identity numbers included as random effects, whilst veterinary group, age quartile, breed and clinic region were included as fixed effects. The largest odds ratio of an antimicrobial event comprising of a HPCIA by veterinary group was 7.34 (95% confidence interval 5.14 – 10.49), compared to the lowest group (p &lt; 0.001). Intraclass correlation was more strongly clustered at dog (0.710, 95% confidence interval 0.701 - 0.719) than clinic level (0.089, 95% confidence interval 0.076 -0.104). This suggests that veterinarians working in the same clinic do not automatically share ways of working with antimicrobials. Fieldwork revealed how the structure of the companion animal veterinary sector was more fluid than that depicted in the statistical model, and identified opportunities and challenges regarding altering antimicrobial use. These findings were organised into the following themes: “Highest priority what?”; “He’s just not himself”; “Oh no – here comes the antibiotics police”; “We’re like ships that pass in the night”; and “There’s not enough hours in the day”. This rigorous mixed-methods study demonstrates the importance of working across disciplinary silos when tackling the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. The findings can help inform the design of sustainable stewardship schemes for the companion animal veterinary sector.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-5877</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-1716</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105117</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32890918</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animals ; Anti-Infective Agents - therapeutic use ; Antibiotic ; Antimicrobial consumption ; Companion animal ; Dogs ; Drug Prescriptions - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Hospitals, Animal - organization &amp; administration ; Hospitals, Animal - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Male ; Social sciences ; Treatment incidence ; United Kingdom ; Veterinarians - psychology</subject><ispartof>Preventive veterinary medicine, 2020-10, Vol.183, p.105117-105117, Article 105117</ispartof><rights>2020 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-c8e9a96bca722380c5eee1dbf5f04d0a2f45105ff4ef9ab0fa2a88ee5842683b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-c8e9a96bca722380c5eee1dbf5f04d0a2f45105ff4ef9ab0fa2a88ee5842683b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105117$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32890918$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tompson, Alice C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, Clare I.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateus, Ana L.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Neill, Dan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Yui-Mei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodbelt, Dave C.</creatorcontrib><title>What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics</title><title>Preventive veterinary medicine</title><addtitle>Prev Vet Med</addtitle><description>Antimicrobial use in companion animals is a largely overlooked contributor to the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. Humans and companion animals share living spaces and some classes of antimicrobials, including those categorised as Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPCIAs). Veterinary guidelines recommend that these agents are not used as routine first line treatment and their frequent deployment could offer a surrogate measure of ‘inappropriate’ antimicrobial use. Anthropological methods provide a complementary means to understand how medicines use makes sense ‘on-the-ground’ and situated in the broader social context. This mixed-methods study sought to investigate antimicrobial use in companion animals whilst considering the organisational context in which increasing numbers of veterinarians work. Its aims were to i) to epidemiologically analyse the variation in the percentage of antimicrobial events comprising of HPCIAs in companion animal dogs attending UK clinics belonging to large veterinary groups and, ii) to analyse how the organisational structure of companion animal practice influences antimicrobial use, based on insight gained from anthropological fieldwork. A VetCompassTM dataset composed of 468,665 antimicrobial dispensing events in 240,998 dogs from June 2012 to June 2014 was analysed. A hierarchical model for HPCIA usage was built using a backwards elimination approach with clinic and dog identity numbers included as random effects, whilst veterinary group, age quartile, breed and clinic region were included as fixed effects. The largest odds ratio of an antimicrobial event comprising of a HPCIA by veterinary group was 7.34 (95% confidence interval 5.14 – 10.49), compared to the lowest group (p &lt; 0.001). Intraclass correlation was more strongly clustered at dog (0.710, 95% confidence interval 0.701 - 0.719) than clinic level (0.089, 95% confidence interval 0.076 -0.104). This suggests that veterinarians working in the same clinic do not automatically share ways of working with antimicrobials. Fieldwork revealed how the structure of the companion animal veterinary sector was more fluid than that depicted in the statistical model, and identified opportunities and challenges regarding altering antimicrobial use. These findings were organised into the following themes: “Highest priority what?”; “He’s just not himself”; “Oh no – here comes the antibiotics police”; “We’re like ships that pass in the night”; and “There’s not enough hours in the day”. This rigorous mixed-methods study demonstrates the importance of working across disciplinary silos when tackling the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. The findings can help inform the design of sustainable stewardship schemes for the companion animal veterinary sector.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Anti-Infective Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Antibiotic</subject><subject>Antimicrobial consumption</subject><subject>Companion animal</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Drug Prescriptions - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitals, Animal - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Hospitals, Animal - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Treatment incidence</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Veterinarians - psychology</subject><issn>0167-5877</issn><issn>1873-1716</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEFP3DAQha0KVLa0f4H6yCVb23Fi54RWqNCqSL2AerQcewyzTeLFzq66_75eLXDlZGn8vXnzHiFfOVtyxttv6-UmwQ7mEfxSMHGYNpyrD2TBtaorrnh7QhaFVFWjlTojn3JeM8baVjcfyVktdMc6rhfk758nO1OfcAeZ2mnGEV2KPdqBFofsEvY4PdIQE3Vx3NgJ41Q4HO2Qr-iKjvgPfDXC_BR9pnne-j2NgT78ouU6SDjZtKduwAld_kxOQ5HBl5f3nDzcfL-__lHd_b79eb26q5wUbK6chs52be-sEqLWzDUAwH0fmsCkZ1YE2ZS4IUgIne1ZsMJqDdBoKVpd9_U5uTzu3aT4vIU8mxGzg2GwE8RtNkJKJlslWVNQdURL6JwTBLNJJVvaG87MoWmzNm9Nm0PT5th0UV68mGz7w9-r7rXaAqyOAJSoO4RkskOYHHhM4GbjI75r8h_12ZYj</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>Tompson, Alice C.</creator><creator>Chandler, Clare I.R.</creator><creator>Mateus, Ana L.P.</creator><creator>O’Neill, Dan G.</creator><creator>Chang, Yui-Mei</creator><creator>Brodbelt, Dave C.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics</title><author>Tompson, Alice C. ; Chandler, Clare I.R. ; Mateus, Ana L.P. ; O’Neill, Dan G. ; Chang, Yui-Mei ; Brodbelt, Dave C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c420t-c8e9a96bca722380c5eee1dbf5f04d0a2f45105ff4ef9ab0fa2a88ee5842683b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Anti-Infective Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Antibiotic</topic><topic>Antimicrobial consumption</topic><topic>Companion animal</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Drug Prescriptions - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitals, Animal - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Hospitals, Animal - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Treatment incidence</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Veterinarians - psychology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tompson, Alice C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, Clare I.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mateus, Ana L.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Neill, Dan G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Yui-Mei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brodbelt, Dave C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Preventive veterinary medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tompson, Alice C.</au><au>Chandler, Clare I.R.</au><au>Mateus, Ana L.P.</au><au>O’Neill, Dan G.</au><au>Chang, Yui-Mei</au><au>Brodbelt, Dave C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics</atitle><jtitle>Preventive veterinary medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Prev Vet Med</addtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>183</volume><spage>105117</spage><epage>105117</epage><pages>105117-105117</pages><artnum>105117</artnum><issn>0167-5877</issn><eissn>1873-1716</eissn><abstract>Antimicrobial use in companion animals is a largely overlooked contributor to the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. Humans and companion animals share living spaces and some classes of antimicrobials, including those categorised as Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (HPCIAs). Veterinary guidelines recommend that these agents are not used as routine first line treatment and their frequent deployment could offer a surrogate measure of ‘inappropriate’ antimicrobial use. Anthropological methods provide a complementary means to understand how medicines use makes sense ‘on-the-ground’ and situated in the broader social context. This mixed-methods study sought to investigate antimicrobial use in companion animals whilst considering the organisational context in which increasing numbers of veterinarians work. Its aims were to i) to epidemiologically analyse the variation in the percentage of antimicrobial events comprising of HPCIAs in companion animal dogs attending UK clinics belonging to large veterinary groups and, ii) to analyse how the organisational structure of companion animal practice influences antimicrobial use, based on insight gained from anthropological fieldwork. A VetCompassTM dataset composed of 468,665 antimicrobial dispensing events in 240,998 dogs from June 2012 to June 2014 was analysed. A hierarchical model for HPCIA usage was built using a backwards elimination approach with clinic and dog identity numbers included as random effects, whilst veterinary group, age quartile, breed and clinic region were included as fixed effects. The largest odds ratio of an antimicrobial event comprising of a HPCIA by veterinary group was 7.34 (95% confidence interval 5.14 – 10.49), compared to the lowest group (p &lt; 0.001). Intraclass correlation was more strongly clustered at dog (0.710, 95% confidence interval 0.701 - 0.719) than clinic level (0.089, 95% confidence interval 0.076 -0.104). This suggests that veterinarians working in the same clinic do not automatically share ways of working with antimicrobials. Fieldwork revealed how the structure of the companion animal veterinary sector was more fluid than that depicted in the statistical model, and identified opportunities and challenges regarding altering antimicrobial use. These findings were organised into the following themes: “Highest priority what?”; “He’s just not himself”; “Oh no – here comes the antibiotics police”; “We’re like ships that pass in the night”; and “There’s not enough hours in the day”. This rigorous mixed-methods study demonstrates the importance of working across disciplinary silos when tackling the complex problem of antimicrobial resistance. The findings can help inform the design of sustainable stewardship schemes for the companion animal veterinary sector.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>32890918</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105117</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-5877
ispartof Preventive veterinary medicine, 2020-10, Vol.183, p.105117-105117, Article 105117
issn 0167-5877
1873-1716
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2440467405
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Animals
Anti-Infective Agents - therapeutic use
Antibiotic
Antimicrobial consumption
Companion animal
Dogs
Drug Prescriptions - statistics & numerical data
Epidemiology
Female
Hospitals, Animal - organization & administration
Hospitals, Animal - statistics & numerical data
Male
Social sciences
Treatment incidence
United Kingdom
Veterinarians - psychology
title What drives antimicrobial prescribing for companion animals? A mixed-methods study of UK veterinary clinics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T14%3A43%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20drives%20antimicrobial%20prescribing%20for%20companion%20animals?%20A%20mixed-methods%20study%20of%20UK%20veterinary%20clinics&rft.jtitle=Preventive%20veterinary%20medicine&rft.au=Tompson,%20Alice%20C.&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=183&rft.spage=105117&rft.epage=105117&rft.pages=105117-105117&rft.artnum=105117&rft.issn=0167-5877&rft.eissn=1873-1716&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105117&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2440467405%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2440467405&rft_id=info:pmid/32890918&rft_els_id=S0167587720300854&rfr_iscdi=true