↓ Skip to main content

Developing an approach to assessing the political feasibility of global collective action and an international agreement on antimicrobial resistance

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Developing an approach to assessing the political feasibility of global collective action and an international agreement on antimicrobial resistance
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41256-016-0020-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Marie Évelyne Danik, Ioana Pantis, Rachel Smith, John-Arne Røttingen, Steven J. Hoffman

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global issue. International trade, travel, agricultural practices, and environmental contamination all make it possible for resistant microbes to cross national borders. Global collective action is needed in the form of an international agreement or other mechanism that brings states together at the negotiation table and commits them to adopt or implement policies to limit the spread of resistant microorganisms. This article describes an approach to assessing whether political and stakeholder interests can align to commit to tackling AMR. Two dimensions affecting political feasibility were selected and compared across 82 countries: 1) states' global influence and 2) self-interest in addressing AMR. World Bank GDP ranking was used as a proxy for global influence, while human antibiotic consumption (10-year percent change) was used as a proxy for self-interest in addressing AMR. We used these data to outline a typology of four country archetypes, and discuss how these archetypes can be used to understand whether a proposed agreement may have sufficient support to be politically feasible. Four types of countries exist within our proposed typology: 1) wealthy countries who have the expertise and financial resources to push for global collective action on AMR, 2) wealthy countries who need to act on AMR, 3) countries who require external assistance to act on AMR, and 4) neutral countries who may support action where applicable. Any international agreement will require substantial support from countries of the first type to lead global action, and from countries of the second type who have large increasing antimicrobial consumption levels. A large number of barriers exist that could derail efforts towards global collective action on AMR; issues of capacity, infrastructure, regulation, and stakeholder interests will need to be addressed in coordination with other actors to achieve an agreement on AMR. Achieving a global agreement on access, conservation, and innovation - the three pillars of AMR - will not be easy. However, smaller core groups of interested Initiator and Pivotal Countries could develop policy and resolve many issues. If highly influential countries take the lead, agreements could then be scaled up to achieve global action.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,080,237
of 14,550,524 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Research and Policy
#10
of 95 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,058
of 379,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Research and Policy
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,550,524 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 95 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 379,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.