Correction: Factors influencing the behaviour and perceptions of Australian veterinarians towards antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223534.].

Factors influencing the behaviour and perceptions of Australian veterinarians towards antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global crisis with impacts on the future health and welfare of humans and animals. Determining key factors that influence veterinarians' antimicrobial prescribing behaviours can bridge the gap between prescribing guidelines and clinical usage. Veterinarians practicing in Australia were surveyed on their frequency in prescribing different antibiotics; factors influencing their antibiotic prescribing behaviours; and their perceptions of current drivers of AMR. Antibiotics were prescribed in a third of consultations with key differences in the frequency of use of specific antibiotics by small companion animal (SCA), equine and livestock veterinarians, which broadly aligned with antibiotic registration restrictions in Australia. SCA veterinarians reported prescribing broad-spectrum antibiotics of higher importance to human health more frequently than livestock veterinarians. Factors that were reported as 'strong' or 'moderate' barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing were the 1) cost of culture and susceptibility testing and 2) lack of access to rapid and affordable diagnostic tests. Fear of losing clients, colleague pressure, and lack of their own understanding about antibiotics were considered to be 'no' or 'somewhat' of a barrier to appropriate prescribing by respondents. SCA veterinarians placed greater importance on the contribution of antibiotic use in livestock to AMR, than antibiotic use in companion animals. Despite reporting use of fewer, mostly narrow spectrum antibiotics of lower importance to human and animal health, livestock veterinarians were generally more aware of their potential contribution to AMR. This study provides insights into the similarities and differences in SCA, equine and livestock veterinarians practicing in Australia and informs sector-specific strategies to improve antimicrobial stewardship.

Opportunities and challenges to improving antibiotic prescribing practices through a One Health approach: results of a comparative survey of doctors, dentists and veterinarians in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare the knowledge, attitudes and experiences of doctors, dentists and veterinarians (as prescribers) in relation to antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance (AbR), and to consider the implications of these for policy-making that support a One Health approach. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey conducted online. SETTING: Doctors, dentists and veterinarians practising in primary, secondary or tertiary care in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 547 doctors, 380 dentists and 403 veterinarians completed the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescribers' knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of AbR, the extent to which a range of factors are perceived as barriers to appropriate prescribing practices, and perceived helpfulness of potential strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing in practice. RESULTS: There was substantial agreement across prescriber groups that action on AbR is required by multiple sectors and stakeholders. However, prescribers externalised responsibility to some extent by seeing the roles of others as more important than their own in relation to AbR. There were common and context-specific barriers to optimal prescribing across the prescriber groups. Prescriber groups generally perceived restrictive policies as unhelpful to supporting appropriate prescribing in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results have implications for implementing a One Health approach that involves doctors, dentists and veterinarians as key players to tackling the crisis of AbR. The findings are that (1) prescribers understand and are likely receptive to a One Health policy approach to AbR, (2) policy development should be sensitive to barriers that are specific to individual prescriber groups and (3) the development and introduction of interventions that might be perceived as reducing prescriber autonomy will need to be carefully designed and implemented.

What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research? A realist scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health policy-making can benefit from more effective use of research. In many policy settings there is scope to increase capacity for using research individually and organisationally, but little is known about what strategies work best in which circumstances. This review addresses the question: What causal mechanisms can best explain the observed outcomes of interventions that aim to increase policy-makers' capacity to use research in their work? METHODS: Articles were identified from three available reviews and two databases (PAIS and WoS; 1999-2016). Using a realist approach, articles were reviewed for information about contexts, outcomes (including process effects) and possible causal mechanisms. Strategy + Context + Mechanism = Outcomes (SCMO) configurations were developed, drawing on theory and findings from other studies to develop tentative hypotheses that might be applicable across a range of intervention sites. RESULTS: We found 22 studies that spanned 18 countries. There were two dominant design strategies (needs-based tailoring and multi-component design) and 18 intervention strategies targeting four domains of capacity, namely access to research, skills improvement, systems improvement and interaction. Many potential mechanisms were identified as well as some enduring contextual characteristics that all interventions should consider. The evidence was variable, but the SCMO analysis suggested that tailored interactive workshops supported by goal-focused mentoring, and genuine collaboration, seem particularly promising. Systems supports and platforms for cross-sector collaboration are likely to play crucial roles. Gaps in the literature are discussed. CONCLUSION: This exploratory review tentatively posits causal mechanisms that might explain how intervention strategies work in different contexts to build capacity for using research in policy-making.

I see how you feel: Recipients obtain additional information from speakers' gestures about pain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the need for effective pain communication, pain is difficult to verbalise. Co-speech gestures frequently add information about pain that is not contained in the accompanying speech. We explored whether recipients can obtain additional information from gestures about the pain that is being described. METHODS: Participants (n=135) viewed clips of pain descriptions under one of four conditions: 1) Speech Only; 2) Speech and Gesture; 3) Speech, Gesture and Face; and 4) Speech, Gesture and Face plus Instruction (short presentation explaining the pain information that gestures can depict). Participants provided free-text descriptions of the pain that had been described. Responses were scored for the amount of information obtained from the original clips. FINDINGS: Participants in the Instruction condition obtained the most information, while those in the Speech Only condition obtained the least (all comparisons p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gestures produced during pain descriptions provide additional information about pain that recipients are able to pick up without detriment to their uptake of spoken information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals may benefit from instruction in gestures to enhance uptake of information about patients' pain experiences.