MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted two 6.5 h workshops and two 90-min interviews involving 18 AMR and other disciplinary experts from human, animal, and environment sectors who brainstormed the factors influencing AMR and identified leverage points (places) for intervention. Transcripts and workshop materials were coded for factors and their connections and transcribed into a causal loop diagram (CLD). Thematic analysis described AMR dynamics in SEA's food system and leverage points for intervention. The CLD and themes were confirmed via participant feedback.
RESULTS: Participants constructed a CLD of AMR in the SEA food system that contained 98 factors interlinked by 362 connections. CLD factors reflected eight sub-areas of the SEA food system (e.g., government). Seven themes [e.g., antimicrobial and pesticide use and AMR spread (n = 40 quotes)], six "overarching factors" that impact the entire AMR system [e.g., the drive to survive (n = 12 quotes)], and 10 places for intervention that target CLD factors (n = 5) and overarching factors (n = 2) emerged from workshop discussions.
CONCLUSION: The participant derived CLD of factors influencing AMR in the SEA food system demonstrates that AMR is a product of numerous interlinked actions taken across the One Health spectrum and that finding solutions is no simple task. Developing the model enabled the identification of potentially promising leverage points across human, animal, and environment sectors that, if comprehensively targeted using multi-pronged interventions, could evoke system wide changes that mitigate AMR. Even targeting some leverage points for intervention, such as increasing investments in research and capacity building, and setting and enforcing regulations to control antimicrobial supply, demand, and use could, in turn, shift mindsets that lead to changes in more difficult to alter leverage points, such as redefining the profit-driven intent that drives system behavior in ways that transform AMU and sustainably mitigate AMR.
METHODS: This study builds upon previous work that developed a causal loop diagram of AMR using input from two workshops conducted in 2019 in Sweden with experts within the European food system context. A secondary analysis of the workshop transcripts was conducted to identify semi-quantitative data to parameterize drivers in a model of AMR.
MAIN FINDINGS: Participants spoke about AMR by combining their personal experiences with professional expertise within their fields. The analysis of participants' statements provided semi-quantitative data that can help inform a future of AMR emergence and transmission based on a causal loop diagram of AMR in a Swedish One Health system context.
CONCLUSION: Using transcripts of a workshop including participants with diverse expertise across the system that drives AMR, we gained invaluable insight into the past, current, and potential future states of the major drivers of AMR, particularly where quantitative data are lacking.
METHODS: A questionnaire was used to explore context, characteristics, and success factors or obstacles to intervention success based on participant input. The context was analyzed using the AMR-Intervene framework, and success factors and obstacles to intervention success were identified using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 77 interventions, 57 were implemented in HICs and 17 in LMICs. Interventions took place in the animal sector, followed by the human sector. Public organizations were mainly responsible for implementation and funding. Nine themes and 32 sub-themes emerged as important for intervention success. The themes most frequently reported were 'behavior', 'capacity and resources', 'planning', and 'information'. Five sub-themes were key in all contexts ('collaboration and coordination', 'implementation', 'assessment', 'governance', and 'awareness'), two were key in LMICs ('funding and finances' and 'surveillance, antimicrobial susceptibility testing and preventive screening'), and five were key in HICs ('mandatory', 'multiple profiles', 'personnel', 'management', and 'design').
CONCLUSION: LMIC sub-themes showed that funding and surveillance were still key issues for interventions, while important HIC sub-themes were more specific and detailed, including mandatory enforcement, multiple profiles, and personnel needed for good management and good design. While behavior is often underrated when implementing AMR interventions, capacity and resources are usually considered, and LMICs can benefit from sub-themes captured in HICs if tailored to their contexts. The factors identified can improve the design, planning, implementation, and evaluation of interventions.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare and assess interventions that address AMR across the One Health spectrum and determine what actions will help to build social and ecological capacity and readiness to sustainably tackle AMR.
METHODS: We will apply social-ecological resilience theory to AMR in an explicit One Health context using mixed methods and identify interventions that address AMR and its key pressure antimicrobial use (AMU) identified in the scientific literature and in the gray literature using a web-based survey. Intervention impacts and the factors that challenge or contribute to the success of interventions will be determined, triangulated against expert opinions in participatory workshops and complemented using quantitative time series analyses. We will then identify indicators using regression modeling, which can predict national and regional AMU or AMR dynamics across animal and human health. Together, these analyses will help to quantify the causal loop diagrams (CLDs) of AMR in the European and Southeast Asian food system contexts that are developed by diverse stakeholders in participatory workshops. Then, using these CLDs, the long-term impacts of selected interventions on AMR will be explored under alternate future scenarios via simulation modeling and participatory workshops. A publicly available learning platform housing information about interventions on AMR from a One Health perspective will be developed to help decision makers identify promising interventions for application in their jurisdictions.
RESULTS: To date, 669 interventions have been identified in the scientific literature, 891 participants received a survey invitation, and 4 expert feedback and 4 model-building workshops have been conducted. Time series analysis, regression modeling of national and regional indicators of AMR dynamics, and scenario modeling activities are anticipated to be completed by spring 2022. Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Waterloo's Office of Research Ethics (ethics numbers 40519 and 41781).
CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides an example of how to study complex problems such as AMR, which require the integration of knowledge across sectors and disciplines to find sustainable solutions. We anticipate that our study will contribute to a better understanding of what actions to take and in what contexts to ensure long-term success in mitigating AMR and its impact and provide useful tools (eg, CLDs, simulation models, and public databases of compiled interventions) to guide management and policy decisions.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24378.