Prev Vet Med. 2016 Nov 1;134:69-81. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.10.001. Epub 2016 Oct 5.
- 1Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Midlothian EH26 0PZ, UK.
- 2Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZJ, UK.
- 3Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZJ, UK.
- 4Moredun Research Institute, Pentlands Science Park, Midlothian EH26 0PZ, UK. Electronic address: jacqui.matthews@moredun.ac.uk.
Abstract
The
aim of this study was to determine practices, attitudes and experiences
of UK prescribers of anthelmintics for horses and livestock. A
questionnaire was sent by direct email to groups licenced to prescribe
these medicines. These were veterinarians, Suitably Qualified Persons
(SQPs, registered with the Animal Medicines Training Regulatory
Authority) and veterinary pharmacists. The survey was also advertised
through social media. It comprised questions relating to demographics,
training experiences, current prescribing practices, as well as personal
opinions on anthelmintic selection, diagnostics and anthelmintic
resistance. A total of 193 veterinarians and 326 SQPs were included in
final analysis. Pharmacists were excluded from detailed analysis due to
the low numbers that responded (n=3). The results indicated that SQP
participants were more likely to receive post-certification parasitology
training than the veterinarians, and that both channels consulted
similar sources for information about helminths and their control (paper
articles in journals, online sources). The SQP participants stated a
higher frequency of face-to-face interactions with clients/customers
(96.1%) than the veterinarians (76.4%), who stated a higher frequency of
telephone interactions (55.1% and 73.5%, respectively). Veterinarians
were more likely to state that there were specific factors that limited
interactions with their clients (54.1%) than SQPs (19.6%), such as
competition from other suppliers. SQP participants considered a wider
range of factors as important when deciding on which anthelmintic to
recommend (i.e. knowledge of specific parasites, knowledge of specific
anthelmintics, discussion of measures to avoid anthelmintic resistance
and time to talk with clients/customers); however, the veterinarian
participants were more likely to consider the results of diagnostic
tests. While discussions about anthelmintic resistance were stated with
similar frequency in both groups, less frequent were specific
discussions about anthelmintic sensitivity testing. In-house faecal egg
count analysis was more likely to be available from those that
prescribed anthelmintics for equines alone, compared to prescribers who
dispensed anthelmintics for livestock alone or livestock and equines.
The SQP participants indicated that they felt a large number of
organisations were responsible for ensuring that anthelmintics are used
responsibly, whilst veterinarian participants were more likely to place
responsibility on the prescribers alone. Taken together, these findings
provide an insight into how prescribers of anthelmintics in the UK
interact with their clients/customers before and at the point of sale
and act as a unique source of information on how best practice advice
pertaining to sustainable helminth control is disseminated by the
various prescribing channels.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:
Anthelmintics; Equines; Helminths; Livestock; Prescribing practices; Suitably qualified persons; Veterinarians
