Rural veterinarian's perception and practices in terms of biosecurity across three European countries

The implementation of biosecurity measures in the animal health and production context is quite broad and aims at limiting the risk of introduction and spread of diseases. Veterinarians play a major role in biosecurity as key informants on the subject for cattle holders, key players in terms of disease prevention/control and eradication programs, as well as key risk factor in terms of disease dissemination. Many biosecurity studies have highlighted professional visitors such as veterinary practitioners as representing a high-risk factor in terms of disease introduction in animal facilities but, to date, very few studies have focused on the implementation level of biosecurity measures by veterinarians. An online survey was implemented in three European countries (Belgium, France and Spain) to assess the behaviour of rural veterinarians towards biosecurity, as well as their implementation level of the biosecurity measures. A descriptive analysis of data and a scoring system were applied to assess the implementation level of measures. The influence of different factors on the implementation level of biosecurity measures was investigated through a negative binomial regression model. The study identified different strengths, weaknesses, possible constraints and solutions in terms of veterinary perspectives. Veterinarians are considered as key informants by the farmers and could therefore play a more active role in terms of guidance and improvement of biosecurity at farm level. Based on the survey outcomes, two factors seemed to influence significantly the implementation level of measures: the country where he/she practices and the veterinarian's perception level of biosecurity. The biosecurity stages with the lowest application level, therefore representing the biggest threats, were bio-exclusion (increasing the risk of disease introduction) and biocontainment (increasing the risk of inter-herd transmission).info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

How to access data availability, accessibility and format for risk analysis?

Risk assessments are mostly carried out based on available data, which do not reflect all data theoretically required by experts to answer them. This study aimed at developing a methodology to assess data availability, accessibility and format, based on a scoring system and focusing on two diseases: Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE), still exotic to Europe, and alveolar echinococcosis, caused by Echinococcus multilocularis (EM), endemic in several Member States (MSs). After reviewing 36 opinions of the EFSA-AHAW Panel on risk assessment of animal health questions, a generic list of needed data was elaborated. The methodology consisted, first, in implementing a direct and an indirect survey to collect the data needed for both case studies: the direct survey consisted in a questionnaire sent to contact points of three European MSs (Belgium, France and the Netherlands), and the organization of a workshop gathering experts on both diseases. The indirect survey, focusing on the three MSs involved in the direct survey plus Spain, relied on web searches. Secondly, a scoring system with reference to data availability, accessibility and format was elaborated, to, finally, compare both diseases and data between MSs. The accessibility of data was generally related to their availability. Web searches resulted in more data available for VEE compared to EM, despite its current exotic status in the European Union. Hypertext markup language and portable document files were the main formats of available data. Data availability, accessibility and format should be improved for research scientists/assessors. The format of data plays a key role in the feasibility and rapidness of data management and analysis, through a prompt compilation, combination and aggregation in working databases. Harmonization of data collection process is encouraged, according to standardized procedures, to provide useful and reliable data, both at the national and the international levels for both animal and human health; it would allow assessing data gaps through comparative studies. The present methodology is a good way of assessing the relevance of data for risk assessment, as it allows integrating the uncertainty linked to the quality of data used. Such an approach could be described as transparent and traceable and should be performed systematically