Show simple item record

dc.creatorGarza, M.en_US
dc.creatorChadag, V.en_US
dc.creatorBranton, L.en_US
dc.creatorWieland, B.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-20T20:50:32Z
dc.date.available2022-04-20T20:50:32Z
dc.date.issued2022en_US
dc.identifier.citationMaria Garza, Chadag V. Mohan, Lucy Brunton, Barbara Wieland, Barbara Häsler, Typology of interventions for antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture systems in low- and middle-income countries, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 59, Issue 1, 2022, 106495, ISSN 0924-8579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106495.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0924-8579en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12348/5160
dc.description.abstractIndiscriminate antimicrobial use (AMU) in aquaculture to treat and prevent diseases is common and can lead to the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant micro-organisms, potentially impacting public health and connected ecosystems. This study aimed to develop a typology to classify and characterise interventions to reduce AMU in aquaculture and identify points of action. Seventeen aquaculture and animal health professionals in Asian and African countries were interviewed to gather information on characteristics of interventions in different contexts to develop a typology. Seven types of interventions were defined: (i) legislation and regulations; (ii) industry rules and standards; (iii) voluntary instruments; (iv) commercial technology and alternatives to antimicrobials; (v) on-farm management; (vi) learning and awareness-raising; and (vii) activities with co-benefits. Types were based on intervention function, scope of implementation, implementer, compulsion, strength of the intervention, AMU/antimicrobial resistance (AMR) objective and stakeholder to influence. For each type, examples were described and discussed. The most common interventions to address AMU and AMR were legislative and regulatory frameworks and voluntary instruments, including National Action Plans. Interventions addressing AMU/AMR specifically were scarce. Other interventions focused on indirect effect pathways to AMU and AMR reduction aiming to improve good aquaculture practices, disease prevention and improved management. Monitoring and evaluation of these interventions were found to be rare, only present for interventions driven by development projects and international agencies. The presented typology of existing strategies and interventions addressing AMU/AMR in aquaculture systems can guide evaluation of AMR-sensitive interventions that promote responsible AMU, and informs the design and implementation of future interventions.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier (12 months)en_US
dc.rightsCC-BY-4.0en_US
dc.sourceInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents;59,(2021)en_US
dc.subjectinterventionsen_US
dc.subjectantimicrobial useen_US
dc.subjectFishen_US
dc.titleTypology of interventions for antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture systems in low- and middle-income countriesen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.contributor.crpFishen_US
cg.coverage.countryViet Namen_US
cg.coverage.regionSouth-Eastern Asiaen_US
cg.subject.agrovocaquacultureen_US
cg.subject.agrovocantimicrobial resistanceen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationRoyal Veterinary Collegeen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationWorldFishen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Livestock Research Instituteen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInstitute of Virology and Immunologyen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Bernen_US
cg.identifier.statusOpen accessen_US
cg.identifier.ISIindexedISI indexeden_US
cg.contribution.worldfishauthorChadag, V.en_US
cg.description.themeSustainable aquacultureen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106495en_US
cg.creator.idVishnumurthy Mohan Chadag: 0000-0002-2574-284Xen_US
cg.creator.idBarbara Wieland: 0000-0003-4020-9186en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record