Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health issue affecting humans and livestock. Reduction in antimicrobial use (AMU) and appropriate use of antimicrobials in livestock production systems have been encouraged. Lack of access to qualified veterinarians, policies regulating AMU and knowledge of AMU and AMR have been identified as drivers of inappropriate AMU behavior in developing countries. Hence, para-veterinarians take a lead role in providing veterinary services to livestock farmers in developing countries. Our previous work found Fijian farmers lack knowledge and understanding of AMU and AMR. However, the attitude, knowledge, and behavior of Fijian veterinary professionals toward AMU and AMR is currently unknown. Therefore, this qualitative study used face-to-face, semi-structured interviews to explore and understand Fijian veterinarian and para-veterinarians' attitude, knowledge, and behavior toward AMU and AMR. A sample of at least ten participants was targeted and recruited from the Central and Western divisions of Viti Levu, Fiji. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) informed the development of the semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and deductively using the TPB framework. Our analysis generated three key themes: 1) Antimicrobials prescribed and used based on availability and cost rather than clinical need, 2) Para-veterinarians awareness and knowledge of AMR influence treatment decisions, and 3) Limited resources impede effective consultation and veterinary service delivery. This study demonstrated para-veterinarians (not veterinarians) lacked knowledge and understanding of AMU and AMR. The availability and cost of antimicrobials rather than clinical justification drove antimicrobial prescribing amongst the para-veterinarians. Veterinarians did not visit farms to provide veterinary services; therefore, para-veterinarians provided the veterinary services to the livestock farmers. Lack of human resources, antimicrobials, and physical resources incapacitated veterinary service delivery, where services to farmers' were delayed or not provided at all. Terms of reference for veterinary service delivery and para-veterinarian training framework targeting prescribing, dispensing, use of antimicrobials and risks associated with inappropriate AMU are recommended as part of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes. Allocation of physical and human resources to Fijian veterinary services should be considered part of AMS programmes to improve veterinary service delivery to livestock farmers and optimize the AMU at the country level.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to humans and animals globally. Antimicrobial stewardship has been acknowledged as a primary strategy to tackle AMR. An important first step for antimicrobial stewardship is to quantify antimicrobial use (AMU). In Fiji, there are currently no data on AMU in livestock farms. This study aimed to quantify AMU in different livestock enterprises (beef, dairy, broiler, and layer) and farming systems (backyard, semi-commercial and commercial) in Central and Western divisions of Viti Levu, Fiji. A survey with 210 livestock farmers and 26 managers representing 276 enterprises was conducted between May and September 2019. The difference in AMU between different livestock enterprises and farming systems was investigated using ANOVA. In Fiji, the estimated annual antibiotic use in livestock was lower than the global average (44 compared with 118 mg/PCU). However, this use was concentrated in 56% of participant farms (the remaining 44% did not use antimicrobials). Total estimated quarterly anthelmintic use (20,797 mg) was not affected by farming systems but was highest (P < 0.001) in dairy enterprises (24,120 mg) and lowest in broiler enterprises (4 mg). Quarterly antibiotic use was different between the enterprises regardless of the metrics used to quantify the use (P < 0.05). Total estimated quarterly mg/PCU of antibiotic use was highest (P < 0.001) in broiler enterprises (12.4 mg/PCU) and lowest in beef enterprises (0.2 mg/PCU). For all other ESVAC metrics, total estimated antibiotic use was higher in poultry and lower in cattle enterprises. Backyard systems used less antibiotics (total mg) than commercial systems, but for other metrics, the trend was reversed. The use of both antibiotics and anthelmintics (rather than antibiotics or anthelmintics alone, or no AMU) was associated with dairy enterprises (Χ² = 123, P < 0.001). Further studies should be conducted to quantify and evaluate the drivers of AMU in Fijian livestock farms. In addition, differences in AMU between different enterprises and farming systems suggest that strategies to reduce AMU should be tailored to specific settings.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health issue affecting humans and livestock. To mitigate AMR risks, responsible use of antimicrobials in livestock production systems have been advocated. Studies have reported patterns of antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock production systems; however, there is limited information on the drivers of AMU and AMR. Therefore, this study aimed to explore and understand the attitude and knowledge of Fijian livestock farmers on AMU and AMR. Livestock farmers and managers from the Central and Western divisions of Viti Levu, Fiji were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Face-to-face one-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Interview questions were informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Interview transcripts were analyzed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis and deductively using the TPB framework. A total of 19 cattle and poultry farmers took part. 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 antimicrobials (3) Medicine shortage results in hoarding and self-prescribing, and (4) Farm decisions on AMU and livestock management influenced by foreign farmers and veterinarians. Livestock farmers used medicines in livestock production; however, they could not differentiate amongst different types of medicine, including antimicrobials. Antimicrobials were used to prevent diseases in livestock and promote production of food and financial security but without any awareness of the risks of AMR. Additionally, farmers hoarded and self-prescribed medicines. Farmers rationed antimicrobials by not completing the entire course of antibiotics to save them for future use. Based on past experiences, farmers expressed dissatisfaction with the veterinary services provided by the government. They sought help online and from foreign farmers and veterinarians. We propose the need for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes focused on promoting rational use of antimicrobials and awareness of AMR amongst farmers in the Fijian livestock production systems. These programmes need to consider the anthropological, socio-cultural, economic, and environmental factors driving AMU. Future studies are underway to explore the attitude and knowledge of Fijian veterinarians, para-veterinarians and pharmacists on AMU and AMR to gain a broader systems knowledge to inform the design of AMS programmes.

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes in human health and livestock production are vital to tackling antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Data on antimicrobial use (AMU), resistance, and drivers for AMU in livestock are needed to inform AMS efforts. However, such data are limited in Fiji. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the association between farmer (socio-economic, demographic) and livestock production and management factors with AMU. Information was collected using purposive and snowball sampling from 236 livestock farmers and managers located in Central and Western divisions, Viti Levu, Fiji. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with AMU in farms using an aggregated livestock farm model. Farms that raised cattle only for dairy (farm factor) were more likely to use antibiotics and anthelmintics (p = 0.018, OR = 22.97, CI 1.713, 308.075) compared to mixed cattle and poultry farms. Farms that maintained AMU records were more likely to use antibiotics (p = 0.045, OR = 2.65, CI 1.024, 6.877) compared to farms that did not. Other livestock production and management factors had no influence on AMU on the livestock farms. AMU in livestock farms was not influenced by the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the farmer. There were differences between livestock enterprises regarding their management. The lack of association between management system and AMU could be because there was so much variation in management system, levels of farmer knowledge and awareness of AMU, and in management of farm biosecurity. Future studies exploring farmers’ knowledge and awareness of AMU and livestock management are required to design AMS programmes promoting prudent AMU in all livestock farms locally.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global threat to human and animal health. The use of antimicrobials in the livestock sector is considered to contribute to AMR. Therefore, a reduction in and prudent use of antimicrobials in livestock production systems have been advocated. This cross-sectional survey aimed to investigate the extent of imprudent antimicrobial use (AMU) and to determine whether the AMU practice was affected by either the farming system or species of farmed livestock in the largest island (Viti Levu) of Fiji. A total of 276 livestock enterprises were surveyed and antimicrobials were used on 309 occasions over 90 days. Overall, in 298 of 309 (96%) incidents, antimicrobials were used imprudently, comprising antibiotics, 160 of 170 (94%) and anthelmintics, 138 of 139 (99%). Prudent use of antibiotics was associated with commercial farming systems (X² = 13, p = 0.001), but no association was observed with anthelmintic use (p > 0.05). Imprudent antibiotic use was associated with dairy (OR = 7.6, CI = 1.41, 41.57, p = 0.018) followed by layer and beef (p > 0.05) compared to broiler enterprises. Imprudent AMU was more common in the backyard and semi-commercial enterprises compared to commercial broiler enterprises. Policies promoting the prudent use of antimicrobials in Fiji should focus on smaller livestock production systems and enterprises.

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.