To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study examined stakeholder perceptions of gaps in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) mitigation efforts across different sectors and career stages, with the goal of generating insights to support prioritization of One Health interventions.
Method:
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of AMR stakeholders using a structured questionnaire between October and November 2025. Stakeholders were recruited through international networks across 33 countries on 5 continents. Respondents listed the top three areas in AMR mitigation efforts that they perceived as receiving insufficient attention but require greater focus to reduce the emergence and spread of drug-resistant bacterial infections. We performed thematic analysis, calculated weighted priority scores, conducted an Impact-Effort Matrix analysis, and applied Fisher’s exact tests to examine associations between themes, professional sector and career stages.
Results:
Among 103 respondents, participants spanned nine professional sectors and four career stages. Antimicrobial stewardship (18.8%, weighted score 119) and Environmental AMR and Waste (16.5%, weighted score 108) were the most frequently cited perceived gaps. Impact-Effort Matrix analysis identified four priority areas as Quick Wins (stewardship, IPC, surveillance, and animal health, accounting for 45.7% of impact), two Major Projects (environmental AMR, R&D), three Fill-ins (awareness, One Health, other/cross-cutting), and three Hard Slogs (access, financing, policy). No significant associations were observed between perceived mitigation gaps across professional sector and career stages.
Conclusions:
The emphasis on antimicrobial stewardship among stakeholders highlights a perceived disconnect between stewardship policy adoption and on-the-ground practice. The Impact-Effort Matrix provides a decision-support tool that may assist policymakers and funders in prioritizing One Health interventions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.