Understanding farmers' naturalistic decision making around prophylactic antibiotic use in lambs using a grounded theory and natural language processing approach
Understanding farmers' naturalistic decision making around prophylactic antibiotic use in lambs using a grounded theory and natural language processing approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105226
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Kaler, Jasmeet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doidge, Charlotte;Ferguson, Eamonn;Kaler, Jasmeet
在新生羔羊中常规使用抗生素预防疾病被强调为不适当，但研究表明，英国许多农民仍在进行这种做法。该研究的目的是了解农民对羔羊预防性使用抗生素的自然主义决策。使用自然语言处理方法和扎根理论方法对133名不同在线讨论论坛用户的431篇帖子的数据进行了定量分析。定性分析的结果确定了五类影响农民对羔羊预防性使用抗生素的风险感知的类别：预期的后悔、负面情绪和经验回避；经济考虑；农民身份；能力感知；以及社会判断感知。研究小组对帖子进行的自然语言处理分析与来自同一论坛的对照组关于与抗生素使用无关的主题的帖子进行了比较，以了解文本中潜在的风格和语气。研究组的分析性思维和真实性得分显著低于对照组(P<；0.01)。与认知过程有关的词汇在研究组显著高于控制组(P<；0.01)。定性和定量分析的结果被综合起来评估数据的适合性，并单独加强两种方法的结果。关键发现是确定农民在新生羔羊中预防性使用抗生素的原因。农民将新生羔羊口服抗生素的使用与养羊场中其他类型的抗生素分开。农民使用运气和独特性的概念来证明他们预防性使用抗生素是合理的。这可能解释了农民分析思维得分低的原因，因为这反映了农民在个人基础上表达他们对抗生素使用的想法时的一种更个人化的思维方式。农民认为，在繁忙时期，他们没有能力在没有抗生素的情况下控制新生儿疾病，外部经济限制加剧了这一情况。对于将抗生素用于治疗用途的农民来说，对社会判断的恐惧是他们对抗生素使用风险认知的一个重要因素。高频率的否定和连词暗示着道德责任感。因此，抗生素的使用已经发展成为他们良好农业身份的象征，这与预防性使用抗生素的人的身份相冲突。这些结果可用于通报有关羔羊预防性使用抗生素的知识交流，以改善绵羊养殖业的抗生素管理。
The routine use of antibiotics for prevention of disease in neonatal lambs has been highlighted as inappropriate, yet research suggests that many farmers in the UK still carry out this practice.The aim of the study was to understand farmers' naturalistic decision-making around prophylactic antibiotic use in lambs. Data from 431 posts by 133 different users of an online discussion forum were analysed quantitatively using natural language processing and qualitatively using a grounded theory approach. Results from the qualitative analysis identified five categories that influenced farmers risk perceptions around prophylactic antibiotic use in lambs: anticipated regret, negative emotions and experiential avoidance; economic considerations; farmer identity; perception of capability; and perception of social judgement. Natural language processing analysis of the posts by the study group were compared to posts on topics unrelated to antibiotic use by control groups from the same forum to understand the underlying style and tone within the text. Analytical thinking and authenticity scores were significantly lower in the study group compared to the control groups (P < 0.01). Words relating to cognitive processes were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control groups (P < 0.01). Results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis were integrated to assess the fit of the data and enhance findings from either method alone.The key findings were the identification of reasons why farmers used antibiotics prophylactically in neonatal lambs. Farmers disassociated the use of oral antibiotics in neonatal lambs from other types of antibiotics within sheep farming. Farmers used the concept of luck and uniqueness to justify their prophylactic antibiotic use. This may explain farmers' low analytical thinking scores as this reflects a more personal style of thinking as farmers express their thoughts on antibiotic use on an individual basis. Farmers' felt that they did not have the capabilities to control neonatal disease without antibiotics during busy periods and this was exacerbated by external economic constraints. For farmers' who used antibiotics for therapeutic use, fear of social judgement was an important factor in their perceptions of risk around antibiotic use. The high frequency of negations and conjunctions suggested feelings of moral duty. As such, antibiotic use has developed into a symbol of their good farming identity which conflicted with the identity held by those who used antibiotics prophylactically. These results can be used to inform knowledge exchange around prophylactic antibiotic use in lambs to improve antibiotic stewardship in the sheep farming sector.