It was energising to bring together such a wide and engaged community for the IMPACT AMR workshop on Defining AMR Intervention Impacts. Held virtually on 7 May 2025, the workshop brought together 96 participants from across research, policy, public health, veterinary medicine, environmental science, and practice. Through facilitated discussions, Zoom chat, Miro boards, and follow-up feedback, participants contributed a rich and thoughtful set of insights on how antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and AMR interventions affect people, animals, health systems, food systems, and the environment.

In human health, discussions highlighted increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospitalisation, disruption to routine and advanced medical care, psychological burdens for patients and caregivers, and wider social and economic consequences. In animal health, participants emphasised animal welfare, veterinary costs, production losses, and the challenge of balancing antimicrobial stewardship with appropriate access to treatment. Environmental discussions highlighted the movement of resistant organisms and genes through water, soil, wildlife, aquaculture, and ecosystems, with implications for biodiversity, food webs, and cross-sector transmission.

A recurring theme was that AMR interventions can generate both benefits and unintended consequences. Infection prevention and control, stewardship, vaccination, diagnostics, biosecurity, wastewater management, and other interventions may reduce infections, improve productivity, support surveillance, and strengthen systems. However, they may also create burdens, including delayed treatment, reduced clinician or farmer autonomy, stigma, inequitable access to diagnostics or care, increased workload, infrastructure costs, privacy concerns, or unintended ecological effects. These discussions reinforced the importance of asking not only whether an intervention works, but who benefits, who bears the costs, over what timeframe, and across which sectors.

The workshop also showed how knowledgeable and engaged the IMPACT AMR Network members are. The richness of the discussion was not only in the range of expertise represented, but in the way participants worked through the practical challenge of developing shared concepts across sectors, where similar terms can carry different assumptions and priorities. This made the conversations especially valuable, highlighting both the complexity of defining AMR intervention impacts and the importance of doing so collaboratively.

We are now sharing a short workshop report. We hope this will become a useful resource for researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers seeking to broaden the scope of AMR evaluation and better account for cross-sectoral impacts.

With many thanks to everyone who contributed their time, expertise, and reflections. The workshop provided not only a rich synthesis of AMR intervention impacts, but also a clear reminder that progress on AMR prioritisation depends on community.