1. The state of social science research on antimicrobial resistance, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 242, December 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112596
This paper investigates the genealogy of social science research into antimicrobial resistance (AMR) by piecing together the bibliometric characteristics of this branch of research. Drawing on the Web of Science as the primary database, the analysis shows that while academic interest in AMR has increased substantially over the last few years, social science research continues to constitute a negligible share of total academic contributions. More in-depth network analysis of citations and bibliometric couplings suggests how the impact of social science research on the scientific discourse on AMR is both peripheral and spread thin. We conclude that this limited social science engagement is puzzling considering the clear academic and practical demand and the many existing interdisciplinary outlets. ude that this limited social science engagement is puzzling considering the clear academic and practical demand and the many existing interdisciplinary outlets.
2. The glocalization of antimicrobial stewardship Globalization and Health 15(54), 2019
This brief commentary argues that glocal governance introduces a fruitful new perspective to the global governance debate of AMR, and cautions against too strict a focus on establishing globally binding governance regimes for curbing AMR.
3. Antimicrobial resistance as a global health crisis The Oxford Encyclopedia of Crisis Analysis https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1626
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health crisis estimated to be responsible for 700,000 yearly deaths worldwide. Since the World Health Assembly adopted a Global Action Plan on AMR in 2015, national governments in more than 120 countries have developed national action plans. Notwithstanding this progress, AMR still has limited political commitment, and existing global efforts may be too slow to counter its rise. This article presents five characteristics of the global AMR health crisis that complicate the translation from global attention to effective global initiatives. AMR is (a) a transboundary crisis that suffers from collective action problems, (b) a super wicked and creeping crisis, (c) the product of trying to solve other global threats, (d) suffering from lack of advocacy, and (e) producing distributional and ethical dilemmas. Applying these five different crisis lenses, the article reviews central global initiatives, including the Global Action Plan on AMR and the recommendations of the Interagency Coordination Group on AMR. It argues that the five crisis lenses offer useful entry points for social science analyses that further nuance the existing global governance debate of AMR as a global health crisis.
There is a growing interest in One Health, reflected by the rising number of publications relating to One Health literature, but also through zoonotic disease outbreaks becoming more frequent, such as Ebola, Zika virus and COVID-19.
This paper uses bibliometric analysis to explore the state of One Health in academic literature, to visualize the characteristics and trends within the field through a network analysis of citation patterns and bibliographic links. The analysis focuses on publication trends, co-citation network of scientific journals, co-citation network of authors, and co-occurrence of keywords.
The bibliometric analysis showed an increasing interest for One Health in academic research. However, it revealed some thematic and disciplinary shortcomings, in particular with respect to the inclusion of environmental themes and social science insights pertaining to the implementation of One Health policies. The analysis indicated that there is a need for more applicable approaches to strengthen intersectoral collaboration and knowledge sharing. Silos between the disciplines of human medicine, veterinary medicine and environment still persist. Engaging researchers with different expertise and disciplinary backgrounds will facilitate a more comprehensive perspective where the human-animal-environment interface is not researched as separate entities but as a coherent whole. Further, journals dedicated to One Health or interdisciplinary research provide scholars the possibility to publish multifaceted research. These journals are uniquely positioned to bridge between fields, strengthen interdisciplinary research and create room for social science approaches alongside of medical and natural sciences.
5. Enlisting the support of trusted sources to tackle policy problems: The case of antimicrobial resistance PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212993
Antimicrobial resistance represents one of the world’s most pressing public health problems. Governments around the world have—and will continue to—develop policy proposals to deal with this problem. However, the capacity of government will be constrained by very low levels of trust in government. This stands in contrast to ‘medical scientists’ who are highly trusted by the public. This article tests to what extent trusted sources can alter attitudes towards a policy proposal to regulate the use of antibiotics. We find that respondents are much more likely to support a policy put forward by ‘medical scientists.’ This article provides some initial evidence that medical scientists could be used to gain support for policies to tackle pressing policy challenges such as AMR.
6. The global governance of antimicrobial resistance: a cross-country study of alignment between the global action plan and national action plans Globalization and Health, Volume 16, November 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00639-3
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing problem worldwide in need of global coordinated action. With the endorsement of the Global Action Plan (GAP) on AMR in 2015, the 194 member states of the World Health Organization committed to integrating the five objectives and corresponding actions of the GAP into national action plans (NAPs) on AMR. The article analyzes patterns of alignment between existing NAPs and the GAP, bringing to the fore new methodologies for exploring the relationship between globally driven health policies and activities at the national level, taking income, geography and governance factors into account.
7. SPECIAL SOC AMR Curriculum: Training social scientists on social dimensions of AMR – a Curriculum Handbook, co-authored with Daniel de Vries, Karlijn Hofstraat, Stephanie Begemann, Clare Chandler, Nicolas Fortané, Helen Lambert, Carla Rodrigues and Constance Schultz. Produced by the Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, November 2020, https://www.sonar-global.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/20201112-Curriculum-Special-Soc-AMR-final.pdf
The Special-SOC AMR Curriculum is an intended resource for trainers who aim to provide a high-level training on the relevance of social sciences in AMR to scholars or professionals with a university level social science background. It is presumed that participants of the training are interested in integrating knowledge on AMR in their professional or academic practice. With the curriculum documents, an experienced trainer or team of interdisciplinary teachers, will be able to organize a training. The training consists out of a set of training modules that total five days of training. The training modules are arranged from a micro to a macro level. Because interdisciplinarity is a key skill needed to work in the field of AMR, One Health is used as an integrative analytical framework.
8. Attention to the Tripartite’s One Health Measures in National Action Plans on Antimicrobial Resistance accepted for publication in Journal of Public Health Policy, January 2021.
The WHO, FAO, and OIE (the Tripartite) promote One Health (OH) as the guiding frame for national responses to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Little is known, however, about how much national action plans (NAPs) on AMR actually rely on the OH measures outlined by the Tripartite. The paper investigates attention to OH through a systematic content analysis of 77 AMR NAPs to discern regional and income patterns in the integration of these OH measures. Our findings suggest that (1) AMR NAPs almost universally address the three key sectors of OH, namely human, animal, and environmental health; (2) AMR NAPs primarily apply OH measures in policies related to human health care, food production, hygiene, and agriculture, whereas the level of attention to OH measures in sanitation, aquaculture, waste management, and water governance is generally low and mainly present in NAPs from low-income countries; (3) AMR NAPs of low-income and lower-middle-income countries’ display greater congruence with OH measures than NAPs from upper-middle-income and high-income countries; and (4) the level of OH attention on paper appears to matter little for the extent of multisectoral collaboration in practice.