Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is recognised as a critical global health challenge, and veterinary antimicrobial use (AMU) contributes to its development. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Austrian veterinarians regarding AMU and AMR, identifying areas for targeted education and stewardship across practice types.
An online questionnaire was administered in 2022 to veterinarians in Austria. Respondents were categorised by primary type of practice: companion animals (pets and horses), farm animals, or mixed practice. The survey captured knowledge about antimicrobial classifications and risks, attitudes toward drivers of antibiotic prescribing, and self-reported clinical practices including the frequency of antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
The survey identified notable knowledge deficits, particularly among companion animal veterinarians. For example, only 31% of respondents correctly recognised cefovecin as a critically important antimicrobial, while 16% of respondents incorrectly indicated it was a first-choice drug. Despite these gaps, a majority recognised key contributors to AMR: 75% of 165 respondents correctly classified treating groups of animals with orally administered antibiotics as the practice with the highest influence on the development of AMR. These mixed results indicate understanding of some high-level risk factors but incomplete awareness of the criticality and appropriate hierarchy of specific antimicrobial agents.
All practitioner groups rated clinical examination as important or very important when deciding whether to use antibiotics, indicating consistent emphasis on clinical assessment. The influence of non-clinical factors differed by practice type: companion animal practitioners rated cost considerations and owner expectations as significantly less important determinants of antibiotic use compared with farm and mixed practitioners. This suggests contextual differences in prescribing drivers between sectors, with potential implications for stewardship approaches tailored to owner and economic pressures in different practice settings.
Among all 180 veterinarians who responded, 47% reported using antimicrobial susceptibility testing always or regularly. The survey characterised this regular use as occurring in approximately 20%–50% of antibiotic treatments for those respondents. This indicates that while susceptibility testing is incorporated into practice by nearly half of participants, it is not uniformly applied to the majority of antibiotic prescriptions. The balance between empirical therapy and testing-informed therapy varies across respondents and likely across practice types.
The authors explicitly note limitations related to sample size and potential response bias. The relatively small respondent pool may not be representative of the broader Austrian veterinary workforce, and clinicians with particular interest in AMU and AMR may have been more likely to participate. Specific numeric participation rates by practice type beyond those reported in results were not detailed in the abstract. Readers should therefore interpret prevalence estimates and subgroup comparisons with caution.
The study concludes that there is a clear need for additional training to promote prudent antimicrobial use and to raise awareness of antimicrobial stewardship across all veterinary sectors in Austria. Given the identified knowledge shortfalls among companion animal practitioners, future interventions should prioritise these clinicians. Efforts may include focused educational activities on critically important antimicrobials, prescribing hierarchies, and broader implementation of antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide therapy. The findings support targeted stewardship initiatives rather than one-size-fits-all approaches, reflecting differences in prescribing drivers and testing uptake between companion animal, farm and mixed practice settings.
This research was published in Veterinary Record (Vet Rec) with citation details: Vet Rec. 2026 Sep 5;199(5):e250–e261. DOI: 10.1002/vetr.6121. The article was made available online 3 December 2025. The study authors and institutional affiliations are listed in the original publication.
NOTE: The summary above is based on information reported in the PubMed abstract. Detailed methods, full respondent breakdowns and additional study data were not reported in the abstract and would require consultation of the full text for more complete evaluation.