antibiotic use
Publication: Identifying and mapping key relationships and communication pathways influencing farmers’ antibiotic use in production animals: a scoping Review
Authors: Carly Ching, Fiona Emdin, Sahran Shafaque, Muhammad H. Zaman & Veronika J. Wirtz
Introduction
Farmers and livestock producers rely on diverse sources of advice when making decisions about antibiotic use, yet the pathways through which information flows and the actors influencing these decisions are poorly understood.
To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify and map the stakeholder relationships and communication pathways that influence antibiotic use in food-producing animals. We also aimed to understand barriers and facilitators to accessing these information sources.
Findings
Out of 5,925 records, 75 studies published between 2000 and April 2025 met inclusion criteria, spanning 28 countries across all WHO regions. Study designs included qualitative (27%), quantitative (47%), and mixed-methods (27%). Farm types primarily included dairy and poultry.
Among 25 points of influence identified, those most reported across all studies were veterinarians (86.7%), peers (49.3%), and retail sellers (29.3%). Other actors included paraprofessionals, extension officers, cooperatives, NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and online or mass media sources. Influence was categorized as direct, intermediary, distal, or cross-cutting, illustrating the layered structure of advice networks.
The most common barriers reported were limited access/availability (48.6%), cost (45.9%), and lack of trust (18.9%). Other barriers included workload, language, and perceived competence of the information source.
The top facilitators reported were trust (41.7%), access/availability (33.3%), and magnitude of problem (25.0%). Good relationships, specialty/competence, peer pressure, and communication quality also supported uptake of advice.
Recommendations
- Improve communication and trust between farmers and trusted advisors (veterinarians, paraprofessionals, cooperatives).
- Increase training and education programs for farmers and advisory actors.
- Enhance affordability and access to information by:
- Reduce advisory service costs via pooled services or cooperative programs.
- Provide government or NGO subsidies for veterinary services and preventive measures.
- Use telehealth networks for remote advice.
- Tailor interventions to local socioeconomic, cultural, and infrastructure contexts.
- Monitor and regulate advice quality by training and regulating retail sellers, feed dealers, and paraprofessionals to ensure advice aligns with stewardship principles.
Conclusion
By mapping stakeholders, barriers, and facilitators, this work provides a framework for targeting interventions at critical points of influence, supporting sustainable antimicrobial stewardship and mitigating AMR risks. This information can be used by:
- Government policymakers, industry and regulatory agencies: To design interventions that improve veterinary service provision, regulate advice networks, and promote prudent antibiotic use.
- Farmers and farmer cooperatives: To empower decision-making through accessible, trustworthy, and context-relevant advice networks.
This publication is part of the SAFE AMR Governance Partnership, funded through a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Partnership Grant (#895-2022-1015) and coordinated by the Global Strategy Lab. The partnership brings together researchers across countries, institutions, and disciplines to examine and to better understand and address the root social processes, structures, and power dynamics that drive AMR, beyond what could be accomplished by any one country, centre, or discipline alone.
Read the publication here: One Health Outlook, Volume 8, Article 29 (2026)
Learn more about the SAFE AMR Governance Partnership.
Previous