Background: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs are yet to be widely implemented in veterinary practice and medical programs are unlikely to be directly applicable to veterinary settings. Objective: To gain an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence effective AMS in veterinary practices in Australia. Methods: A concurrent explanatory mixed methods design was used. The quantitative phase of the study consisted of an online questionnaire to assess veterinarians’ attitudes to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and antimicrobial use in animals, and the extent to which AMS currently is implemented (knowingly or unknowingly). The qualitative phase used semi-structured interviews to gain an understanding of the barriers to and enablers of AMS in veterinary practices. Data were collected and entered into NVivo v.11, openly coded and analyzed according to mixed methods data analysis principles. Results: Companion animal, equine, and bovine veterinarians participated in the study. Veterinary practices rarely had antimicrobial prescribing policies. The key barriers were a lack of AMS governance structures, client expectations and competition between practices, cost of microbiological testing, and lack of access to education, training and AMS resources. The enablers were concern for the role of veterinary antimicrobial use in development of AMR in humans, a sense of pride in the service provided, and preparedness to change prescribing practices. Conclusion and Clinical Importance: Our study can guide development and establishment of AMS programs in veterinary practices by defining the major issues that influence the prescribing behavior of veterinarians.

Despite the important role of antimicrobial use in companion animals in the global challenge presented by antimicrobial resistance (AMR), very few studies have quantified pet owner factors that can contribute to suboptimal veterinary antimicrobial use. We conducted an online survey of pet owners, asking about their experiences with veterinarians, their opinions on antibiotic use and knowledge of antibiotics, and their communication preferences regarding judicious prescribing. Just over half (54%) of the 558 pet owners had received antibiotics for their pet at their last non-routine veterinary consultation and most owners were happy (83%) with the antibiotic prescribing decision of their veterinarian. A quarter (25%) indicated that they had been surprised, disappointed or frustrated when a veterinarian had not given their pet antibiotics; 15% had explicitly requested them. Owners placed a higher priority on their pet receiving the most effective treatment than on treatment being cheap or convenient. Most respondents recognized the limitations of antibiotic therapy and the risks associated with antibiotic use, but 50% believed the risks were confined to the treated animal; only a minority was aware of inter-species transfer of bacteria. Pet owners indicated that they would find judicious prescribing messages focused on the direct risks of antibiotics to their pet more compelling than those about public health. Our findings suggest that veterinary communications about responsible antibiotic use should focus on pet owners’ priorities and address or bypass their gaps in understanding regarding antibiotic resistance.