Fijian farmers’ attitude and knowledge towards antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in livestock production systems: a qualitative study

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health issue to humans and livestock (1). To mitigate AMR risks, responsible use of antimicrobials in livestock production systems have been advocated (1). Studies have demonstrated the patterns of antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock production systems; however, there is limited information on the drivers of AMU. For successful antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), identifying the psychological (knowledge and attitude) and contextual drivers (environmental factors, economic status, and resource accessibility) for intervention is a crucial first step in the agri-food value chain. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) has been used to understand behaviour influenced by a person’s intention, attitude, and knowledge; therefore, evaluating behaviour allows understanding of drivers that affect and shape the farmers’ intention and decisions (2). Aim To explore and understand the attitude and knowledge of Fijian livestock farmers on AMU and AMR. Methods Face to face one-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted between September and November 2019 with Fijian livestock farmers and managers located in the Central and Western divisions of Viti Levu, Fiji. A sample of at least 20 participants from the cattle and poultry production systems was targeted and recruited using purposive and snowball sampling methods. TPB informed the development of the semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded and analysed inductively using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis and deductively using the TPB framework (results reported elsewhere). An interpretative approach underpinned the design and conduct of this study. Results Nineteen livestock farmers and managers took part in interviews. Our analysis generated four themes: 1) Uninformed use of antimicrobials and unaware of AMR, 2) Safeguarding livestock and generating income source as primary motivators for using medicine, 3) Medicine shortage resulting in hoarding and self-prescribing, and 4) Foreign farmers and veterinarians trusted over Fijian veterinarian and para-veterinarian knowledge. Livestock farmers did not differentiate amongst different types of medicine, including antimicrobials. Therefore, antimicrobials were unwittingly used and without an awareness of the risks of AMR. Medicines, including antimicrobials, were used to protect livestock and promote production for food and financial security. Farmers hoarded medicines and self-prescribed them on the farms. Farmers lacked confidence in the advice on livestock management, and medicine use, provided by Fijian veterinarians and para-veterinarians. They sought help online and from foreign farmers and veterinarians. No participant sought advice from pharmacists who are experts in medicine. Conclusion This study uncovered the first documented accounts of Fijian livestock farmers’ attitude and knowledge on AMU and AMR. AMS programmes promoting awareness and rational use of antimicrobials and resistance in Fijian livestock production is recommended. These programmes need to consider the social, economic, and environmental factors driving irrational medicine use by farmers. We acknowledge the views shared by participants may not be representative of all farmers in Fiji; however, we believe all participants provided in-depth insight into the current drivers of AMU. Future studies exploring the attitude and knowledge of Fijian veterinarians, para-veterinarians and pharmacists on AMU and AMR in livestock production can inform the design of AMS programmes that currently do not exist. References (1) WHO. Antimicrobial Resistance Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2021 [cited 2021 1 September]. Available from: http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance. (2) Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179-211.