Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes and its association with restricted antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding potential associations between restrictions of antimicrobial use and prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacteria. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of interventions reducing antimicrobial use in food-producing animals on the prevalence of AMR genes (ARGs) in bacteria from animals and humans. METHODS: We published a full systematic review of restrictions of antimicrobials in food-producing animals and their associations with AMR in bacteria. Herein, we focus on studies reporting on the association between restricted antimicrobial use and prevalence of ARGs. We used multilevel mixed-effects models and a semi-quantitative approach based on forest plots to summarize findings from studies. RESULTS: A positive effect of intervention [reduction in prevalence or number of ARGs in group(s) with restricted antimicrobial use] was reported from 29 studies for at least one ARG. We detected significant associations between a ban on avoparcin and diminished presence of the vanA gene in samples from animals and humans, whereas for the mecA gene, studies agreed on a positive effect of intervention in samples only from animals. Comparisons involving mcr-1, blaCTX-M, aadA2, vat(E), sul2, dfrA5, dfrA13, tet(E) and tet(P) indicated a reduced prevalence of genes in intervention groups. Conversely, no effects were detected for ß-lactamases other than blaCTX-M and the remaining tet genes. CONCLUSIONS: The available body of scientific evidence supported that restricted use of antimicrobials in food animals was associated with an either lower or equal presence of ARGs in bacteria, with effects dependent on ARG, host species and restricted drug.

Comparison of different approaches to antibiotic restriction in food-producing animals: stratified results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates. While informative, that report did not concretely specify whether different types of restriction are associated with differential effectiveness in reducing resistance. We undertook a sub-analysis of the systematic review to address this question. METHODS: We created a classification scheme of different approaches to antibiotic restriction: (1) complete restriction; (2) single antibiotic-class restriction; (3) single antibiotic restriction; (4) all non-therapeutic use restriction; (5) growth promoter and prophylaxis restriction; (6) growth promoter restriction and (7) other/undetermined. All studies in the original systematic review that were amenable to meta-analysis were included into this substudy and coded by intervention type. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, stratified by intervention type. RESULTS: A total of 127 studies were included. The most frequently studied intervention type was complete restriction (n=51), followed by restriction of non-therapeutic (n=33) and growth promoter (n=19) indications. None examined growth promoter and prophylaxis restrictions together. Three and seven studies examined single antibiotic-class and single antibiotic restrictions, respectively; these two intervention types were not significantly associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance. Though complete restrictions were associated with a 15% reduction in antibiotic resistance, less prohibitive approaches also demonstrated reduction in antibiotic resistance of 9%-30%. CONCLUSION: Broad interventions that restrict global antibiotic use appear to be more effective in reducing antibiotic resistance compared with restrictions that narrowly target one specific antibiotic or antibiotic class. Importantly, interventions that allow for therapeutic antibiotic use appear similarly effective compared with those that restrict all uses of antibiotics, suggesting that complete bans are not necessary. These findings directly inform the creation of specific policies to restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals.

Examination of unintended consequences of antibiotic use restrictions in food-producing animals: Sub-analysis of a systematic review.

Antimicrobial resistance is considered one of the greatest threats to global and public health today. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, known as the Tripartite Collaboration, have called for urgent action. We have previously published a systematic review of 181 studies, demonstrating that interventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in antibiotic resistant bacterial isolates in both animals and humans. What remains unknown, however, are whether (and what) unintended consequences may arise from such interventions. We therefore undertook a sub-analysis of the original review to address this research question. A total of 47 studies described potential consequences of antibiotic restrictions. There were no consistent trends to suggest clear harm. There may be increased bacterial contamination of food products, the clinical significance of which remains unclear. There is a need for rigorous evaluation of the unintended consequences of antibiotic restrictions in human health, food availability, and economics, given their possible widespread implications.

Stakeholder Groups' Unique Perspectives About the Attending Physician Preceptor Role: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Attending physician preceptors are accountable to many stakeholder groups, yet stakeholders' views about what the preceptor role entails have not been sufficiently considered. OBJECTIVE: To explore stakeholder groups' unique perspectives of the preceptor role. DESIGN: Qualitative study with a constructivist orientation. PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 73 participants from two university teaching hospitals between October 2012 and March 2014. Participants included representatives from seven stakeholder groups: patients and their families, allied healthcare providers, bedside nurses, nurse managers, medical students, internal medicine residents, and preceptors. APPROACH: An inductive thematic analysis was conducted where researchers coded transcripts, abstracted codes into themes, and then mapped themes onto six focus areas: role dimensions, role performance, stressors and rewards, mastery, fulfillment, and impact on others. Two authors then identified "recurrent themes" (emerging in two or more focus areas) and compared them across groups to identify "unique themes" (emerging from a maximum of two stakeholder groups). "Unique thematic emphases" (unique themes that would not have emerged if a stakeholder group was not interviewed) are described. KEY RESULTS: Patients and their families emphasized preceptors' ultimate authority. Allied healthcare providers described preceptors as engaged collaborators involved in discharge planning and requiring a sense of humor. Bedside nurses highlighted the need for role standardization. Nurse managers stressed preceptors' need for humanism. Medical students highlighted preceptors' emotional labor and their influence on learners' emotional well-being. Residents emphasized preceptors' responsibilities to multiple stakeholders. Preceptors described lifelong learning and exercising control over one's environment. CONCLUSIONS: Various stakeholder groups hold unique and nuanced views of the attending physician preceptor role. These views could broaden formal role guidance for medical education and patient care. This study generated real-world, practical examples of what stakeholders feel are important preceptor skills. These skills should be practiced, taught, and role modeled in this clinical setting.

Understanding how patients perceive physician wellness and its links to patient care: A qualitative study.

Despite increased interest in physician wellness, little is known about patients' views on the topic. We explore patients' perceptions of physician wellness and how it links to patient care. This exploratory, qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 20 patients from outpatient care settings in a western Canadian city. Using inductive thematic analysis, interview transcripts were independently coded by two authors and then discussed to ensure consensus and to abstract into higher-level themes. Three overarching premises were identified. First, patients notice cues that they interpret as signs of physician wellness. These include overt indicators, such as a physician's demeanor or physical appearance, along with a general impression about a physician's wellness. Second, patients form judgments based on what they notice, and these judgments affect patients' views about their care; feelings, such as trust, in their interactions with physicians; and actions, such as following care plans. Third, participants perceive a bi-directional link between physician wellness and patient care. Physician wellness impacts patient care, but physician wellness is also impacted by the care they provide and the challenges they face within the healthcare system. Patients' judgments regarding physician wellness may have important impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, patients appear to have a nuanced understanding about how physicians' work may put physicians at risk for being unwell. Patients may be powerful allies in supporting physician wellness initiatives focused on the shared responsibility of individual physicians, the medical profession, and healthcare organizations.

The paradox of compassionate work: a mixed-methods study of satisfying and fatiguing experiences of animal health care providers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compassionate work appears paradoxical as it may provide great rewards, but may also come at great costs to care providers. This paper explores the paradox of compassionate work by examining what interactions contribute to compassion satisfaction and what interactions contribute to compassion fatigue. DESIGN: This mixed-methods, cross-sectional study uses qualitative interview data from animal health care providers (N = 20) to identify work interactions that they find satisfying or stressful. Quantitative survey data (N = 572) are used to test hypotheses generated from the interviews regarding predictors of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. METHODS: Interview transcripts were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Survey data were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression. RESULTS: The results highlight the complex nature of compassionate work. As hypothesized, making a difference to animals and building relationships with animal patients and human clients relate to greater compassion satisfaction. Human client barriers to animal care and witnessing client grief relate to greater compassion fatigue, as predicted. None of the predictors relate to less compassion fatigue, but forming relationships with animal patients relates to both greater compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: This paper enhances our understanding of provider-client-patient interactions and highlights the paradox of compassionate work.

Restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic use in human medicine, veterinary medicine, and agriculture has been linked to the rise of antibiotic resistance globally. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise the effect that interventions to reduce antibiotic use in food-producing animals have on the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in animals and in humans. METHODS: On July 14, 2016, we searched electronic databases (Agricola, AGRIS, BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, ProQuest Dissertations, Science Citation Index) and the grey literature. The search was updated on Jan 27, 2017. Inclusion criteria were original studies that reported on interventions to reduce antibiotic use in food-producing animals and compared presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria between intervention and comparator groups in animals or in human beings. We extracted data from included studies and did meta-analyses using random effects models. The main outcome assessed was the risk difference in the proportion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. FINDINGS: A total of 181 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 179 (99%) described antibiotic resistance outcomes in animals, and 81 (45%) of these studies were included in the meta-analysis. 21 studies described antibiotic resistance outcomes in humans, and 13 (62%) of these studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled absolute risk reduction of the prevalence of antibiotic resistance in animals with interventions that restricted antibiotic use commonly ranged between 10 and 15% (total range 0-39), depending on the antibiotic class, sample type, and bacteria under assessment. Similarly, in the human studies, the pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance reported was 24% lower in the intervention groups compared with control groups, with a stronger association seen for humans with direct contact with food-producing animals. INTERPRETATION: Interventions that restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals are associated with a reduction in the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these animals. A smaller body of evidence suggests a similar association in the studied human populations, particularly those with direct exposure to food-producing animals. The implications for the general human population are less clear, given the low number of studies. The overall findings have directly informed the development of WHO guidelines on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals. FUNDING: World Health Organization.