Cole Jennifer, Mughal Amtul Noor, Eltholth Mahmoud, Thomas Abin, Holmes Mark
Department of Health Studies, School of Life Sciences and the Environment, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, United Kingdom.
Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Heliyon. 2024 Feb 8;10(4):e25550. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25550. eCollection 2024 Feb 29.
Interest in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) associated with livestock farming is increasing. During the 1990s, 30-40 academic papers a year on the use of antibiotics in dairy farming were indexed on the scientific database PubMed, but this has grown to more than 200 a year in the 2020s. Most (85%) of these papers are published in veterinary or livestock science journals. There has been a corresponding increase in social science interest in why responsible antibiotic stewardship in the livestock sector is so challenging. However, most social science insights are published in journals specific to the lead authors' field(s), missing opportunities for knowledge translation to veterinary and animal science. This threatens to inhibit the transdisciplinary One Health approaches required to tackle the problem. Between 1 June and 31 December 2021, we undertook a scoping review of papers on the use of antibiotics in dairy farming indexed in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Our aim was to identify studies that incorporate social science approaches and methodologies, and to note the main field of the journal in which these studies are published. Papers were most likely to be published in veterinary science, dairy science and/or livestock science journals (61, 29 and 18 respectively out of 127 papers) and were most likely to be concerned with antibiotic use, prescribing practice, and/or diagnosis (94%, 39% and 33% of included papers respectively). Only 27% of papers meeting our inclusion criteria included a qualitative approach to understanding reasons for antibiotic use. Even fewer acknowledged underlying drivers of behaviour, whereas such reasons are frequently highlighted in social science literature. Thus, to address the global health threat from antibiotic resistance, more work is needed to bring together the disparate but equally valid disciplines, methodologies and researchers working on antibiotic use in the livestock sector.
与畜牧业相关的抗菌药物耐药性（AMR）问题日益受到关注。在20世纪90年代，科学数据库PubMed每年收录30 - 40篇关于奶牛养殖中抗生素使用的学术论文，但到21世纪20年代，这一数字已增长到每年200多篇。其中大部分（85%）论文发表在兽医或畜牧科学期刊上。社会科学领域对畜牧业中负责任的抗生素管理为何如此具有挑战性的兴趣也相应增加。然而，大多数社会科学见解发表在主要作者所在领域的特定期刊上，错失了将知识转化为兽医和动物科学的机会。这有可能抑制解决该问题所需的跨学科“同一健康”方法。在2021年6月1日至12月31日期间，我们对PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science中索引的关于奶牛养殖中抗生素使用的论文进行了范围综述。我们的目的是识别纳入社会科学方法和方法论的研究，并记录这些研究发表的期刊的主要领域。论文最有可能发表在兽医科学、乳品科学和/或畜牧科学期刊上（127篇论文中分别为61篇、29篇和18篇），最有可能涉及抗生素使用、处方实践和/或诊断（分别占纳入论文的94%、39%和33%）。符合我们纳入标准的论文中，只有27%采用定性方法来理解抗生素使用的原因。更少的论文承认行为的潜在驱动因素，而这些原因在社会科学文献中经常被强调。因此，为应对抗生素耐药性带来的全球健康威胁，需要做更多工作，将研究畜牧业抗生素使用的不同但同样有效的学科、方法论和研究人员汇聚在一起。
