MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386168793 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics12091369

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Antibiotic Use and Resistance among Poultry Farmers in Nepal

2023· article· en· W4386168793 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak Subedi, Sumit Jyoti, Bhima Thapa, Sanjay Paudel, Prajjwal Shrestha, Deepak Sapkota, Bhuwan Raj Bhatt, Hari Adhikari, Uddab Poudel, Anil Gautam, R Nepal, Ahmad I. Al-Mustapha

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsAntibiotic resistanceResistance (ecology)AntibioticsBusinessBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abuse and misuse of antibiotics is one of the main drivers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Globally, AMR in food-producing animals is a significant public health concern. This study, therefore, assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to antibiotic usage (AMU) and AMR among poultry farmers in Nepal. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 605 poultry farmers from six districts of Nepal from May to June 2022 to assess the status of knowledge, attitude, as well as practices toward prudent antibiotic usage (AMU) and AMR. The majority of the participants in our study were from the Chitwan district (31.6%; n = 191/605), aged 30–44 (54.2%; n = 328/605), males (70.4%; n = 426/605), and farmers with a higher secondary (28.76%; n = 174/605) level of education. The tetracyclines (28%, n = 228/828), aminoglycosides (23%, n = 188/828), and fluoroquinolones (15%, n = 126/828) were the most used antibiotics classes among poultry farmers. Although 87.8% (n = 531/605) of poultry farmers used antibiotics, 49.8% (n = 301/605) of them were aware of AMR, and 55.7% (n = 337/605) knew that the misuse of antimicrobials could affect human and environmental health. There were significant differences in the knowledge, attitude, and practices toward prudent AMU and AMR among farmers who reared different birds. The mean knowledge, attitude, and practice score of the respondents were 7.81 ± 3.26, 5.8 ± 2.32, and 7.59 ± 3.38 when measured on a scale of 12, 10, and 15, respectively. Based on a cut-off of 75% of the maximum score, 49.4% (n = 299/605), 62.8% (n = 380/605), and 12.73% (n = 77/605) of the respondents had good knowledge, attitude, and practices toward prudent AMU and AMR, respectively. The multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that the positive predictors of good knowledge and attitude were male gender, higher level of education, district, and the types of birds (layers). Similarly, those of the male gender (OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.38–8.20; p = 0.008) and those that rear layers (OR: 4.63; 95% CI: 1.75–12.25; p = 0.003) were more likely to practice prudent usage of antimicrobials. The findings of this study show poor practice toward prudent antibiotic usage despite good knowledge of AMR. This study provides essential baseline data on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of poultry farmers in Nepal and offers valuable insights that could help in the design of interventions and policies aimed at addressing illicit AMU and AMR in poultry in Nepal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicAgricultural Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207