2016, Visschers, Vivianne, Postma, Merel, Sjölund, Marie, Backhans, Annette, Collineau, Lucie, Loesken, Svenja, Belloc, Catherine, Dewulf, Jeroen, Emanuelson, Ulf, Siegrist, Michael, Stärk, Katherina

The prudent use of antimicrobials (AMs) should be widened in pig farming to reduce the risk of AM resistance (AMR) in human and veterinary medicine. It is therefore important to understand pig farmers’ motivators and the barriers to AM usage (AMU) on their farms. The authors investigated pig farmers’ self-estimated levels of AMU, their perceived benefits and risks and the need for AMs in a cross-sectional survey in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. The authors also compared these perceptions between the four countries and related them to pig farmers’ actual AMU. The results showed that farmers who used more AMs also estimated their own usage as higher. Farmers perceived many benefits but relatively few risks of AMU in pig farming. Some significant cross-country differences in farmers’ perceptions were found, but they were relatively small. After controlling for country differences and farm differences, only perceived risks had a significant association with AMU. The authors therefore conclude that in order to promote prudent AMU, it seems most promising to focus on the structural differences in pig farming and veterinary medicine (e.g. legislation, role of the veterinarian) among countries. In addition, interventions which aim at reducing AMU should increase farmers’ awareness of the risks of extensive AMU.

2016, Visschers, Vivianne, Backhans, Annette, Collineau, Lucie, Loesken, Svenja, Nielsen, Elisabeth, Postma, Merel, Belloc, Catherine, Dewulf, Jeroen, Emanuelson, Ulf, Grosse Beilage, Elisabeth, Siegrist, Michael, Sjölund, Marie, Stärk, Katherina

Antimicrobial (AM) resistance is an increasing problem in human and veterinary medicine. To manage this problem, the usage of AM should be reduced in pig farming, as well as in other areas. It is important to investigate the factors that influence both pig farmers' and veterinarians' intentions to reduce AM usage, which is a prerequisite for developing intervention measures. We conducted a mail survey among pig farmers (N = 1,294) and an online survey among veterinarians (N = 334) in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland. The farmers' survey assessed the perceived risks and benefits of and need for AM usage; the intention to reduce AM usage; farmers' efficacy (i.e. perception of their ability to reduce AM usage); support from their veterinarian; and the future reduction potential of AM usage. Additionally, self-reported reduction behaviours, the perceived farmers' barriers to reduce AM usage and relationships with farmers were assessed in the veterinarians' survey. The results showed that farmers and veterinarians had similar perceptions of the risks and benefits of AM usage. Veterinarians appeared to be more optimistic than pig farmers about reducing AM usage in pig farming. Farmers believed that their efficacy over AM reduction was relatively high. Farmers' intention to reduce AM usage and veterinarians' self-reported reduction behaviours were mainly associated with factors concerning the feasibility of reducing AM usage. To promote prudent AM usage, pig farmers should learn and experience how to reduce usage by applying alternative measures, whereas veterinarians should strengthen their advisory role and competencies to support and educate farmers.