Scanning European Needs and Expectations Related to Livestock Biosecurity Training by Using the World Café Method

Saegerman, Claude; Niemi, Jarkko K.; De Briyne, Nancy; Jansen, Wiebke; Cantaloube, Alain; Heylen, Marcel; Niine, Tarmo; Jerab, Julia Gabrielle; Allepuz, Alberto; Chantziaras, Ilias; Rodrigues da Costa, Maria; Humblet, Marie-France; Filippitzi, Maria Eleni

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6743691

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Additional Points Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 6743691 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6743691

Scanning European Needs and Expectations Related to Livestock Biosecurity Training by Using the World Café Method

Claude Saegerman,¹Jarkko K. Niemi,²Nancy De Briyne,³Wiebke Jansen,³Alain Cantaloube,⁴Marcel Heylen,⁵Tarmo Niine,⁶Julia Gabrielle Jerab,⁷Alberto Allepuz,⁸Ilias Chantziaras,⁷Maria Rodrigues da Costa,⁹and Marie-France Humblet¹⁰ et al.

Academic Editor: Abdelfatah Selim

Received19 Sept 2023

Revised12 Mar 2024

Accepted19 Mar 2024

Published30 Mar 2024

Abstract

The European Union Animal Health Law (2016/429) emphasizes disease prevention, underpinned by livestock biosecurity, surveillance, and traceability, as key aspects to minimize the risk of animal diseases. An important element of biosecurity is the training of key actors involved in implementing it. However, their needs and expectations regarding this training are poorly known. Under the COST action BETTER (CA20103), a World Café was organized to identify the needs and expectations of biosecurity training for farmers, veterinary practitioners, veterinary students, and other actors. A total of 78 participants distributed in four groups participated in the World Café. Needs and expectations were identified and ranked in decreasing order of importance. For farmers, the most important aspects were training focusing on practical aspects, the planning of training sessions in the day to accommodate workload, the need to prepare multiple reminders of upcoming training, and the short duration of events. For veterinary practitioners, it was considered that a mixed approach, including a theoretical and a practical part where people are invited to create a biosecurity plan and a follow-up report, were the most important features of training. For veterinary students, creating a good knowledge of the main principles of biosecurity was found as an essential element of training. Regarding other actors, gaining an understanding in the spread of pathogens and the repercussions on the cost of animal products that diseases might have (consumers), training on good/best practices of cleaning and disinfection and the development of clear protocols (transporters), and a mixture of formal and informal training and training on communication skills (other actors) were considered important. The World Café was a useful method to have a first identification, discussion, and differentiation on livestock biosecurity training needs and expectations of the key actors, although additional follow-up research involving more participants from more diverse countries with different coverage of cultures and education would be beneficial. These needs and expectations are relevant and should be considered when designing new training courses.

1. Introduction

The Animal Health Law (AHL) (Regulation (European Union (EU)) 2016/429) emphasizes disease prevention, underpinned by biosecurity, surveillance, and traceability, as key aspects to minimize the risk of animal diseases causing harm to society [1]. In the AHL, biosecurity is defined as “the sum of management and physical measures designed to reduce the risk of the introduction, development, and spread of diseases to, from, and within an animal population, or an establishment, zone, compartment, means of transport or any other facilities, premises, or location.” In a recent expert survey covering eight existing definitions of biosecurity, this definition was among the best-ranked definitions of biosecurity [2]. Only the conceptualization of the rule of five Bs (bio-exclusion, bio-containment, bio-compartmentation, bio-prevention, and bio-preservation) ranked higher in terms of expert elicitation (for more details, see [2, 3]).

Biosecurity is essential to prevent the introduction of pathogens into a farm and their spread inside and outside the farm [4]. Livestock biosecurity gained importance in the last decades (Figure 1). An important element of livestock biosecurity is the level of skills and the training of key actors involved in its implementation (e.g., [5, 6]). Training can be defined as “a planned learning experience designed to bring about permanent change in an individual’s knowledge, attitudes, or skills” [7]. However, the needs and expectations of the key actors regarding livestock biosecurity training are not well known yet.

The BETTER COST action CA20103 (https://better-biosecurity.eu/) is dedicated to enhance biosecurity through training evaluation and raising awareness. For this purpose, it is essential to use participative approaches to better understand the factors affecting motivation and barriers for biosecurity implementation so that evidence-based effective communication strategies can be developed for different groups of actors.

This study addresses the knowledge gap regarding the training needs of different stakeholders on livestock biosecurity. The aim of this study was to identify and rank, in a decreasing order of importance, the needs and expectations of four groups of key actors concerning livestock biosecurity training. The World Café, an innovative method to facilitate reflections of people [8], was used to capture needs and expectations related to livestock biosecurity training. The groups of interest were (i) veterinary practitioners, (ii) farmers, (iii) veterinary students (academic curricula, specialization), and (iv) other actors (e.g., traders, private companies, general population, and international bodies, etc.).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The World Café Method

The World Café is an inspiring and flexible participatory process to explore emerging themes or topics, to collect best practices or suggestions, to generate improvements or recommendations, and to define priorities for the implementation of projects or research agendas [9]. The method is used in various settings such as community health service [10], consumer service [11], manufacturing [12], research prioritization [13], activity planning, and elicitation of community group perspectives [14], plant and public health program evaluation and planning [13, 15, 16], and animal health [17]. Briefly, it is a flexible approach to facilitate group discussions that can be used to engage stakeholders and encourage participation and constructive dialogs while discussing a specific topic [14, 18]. Many operational resources are freely available on how to set up this method [19].

A World Café discussion covers several topics (each with an assigned facilitator and a reporter) that are discussed by small groups of participants rotating between the topics (Box 1 and Box 2). Efforts toward progress are pursued during each rotation, aided by the facilitator, who provides a brief introduction at the beginning of each round to update the new group about the contributions made by the preceding groups [20] (Figure 2). In the original World Café format, special effort is made to encourage informal discussions, making participants feel at ease and creating a relaxed discussion environment resembling a Café [17, 20].

2.2. Study Design and Participant Selection

The World Café was conducted on 7 February 2023 in the Ghent University Museum (Belgium) during a 1-day workshop on the BETTER COST action. Before the World Café, all the participants followed a plenary session that focused on challenges on implementation of biosecurity and training needs, with views presented by experts from the European Commission (Jean-Charles Cavitte, European Commission), the field veterinarians (Nancy De Briyne, Federation of Veterinarians of Europe), the farmers (Alain Cantaloube, Fédération Européenne pour la Santé Animale et la Sécurité Sanitaire (FESASS)) and academia (Jeroen Dewulf, Ghent University).

A total of 78 participants to the COST BETTER (veterinarians with different expertise, farmers and their representatives, students, and other stakeholders) (Figure 3) were involved in the World Café with four tables of discussion in order to bring about their needs and expectations related to livestock biosecurity training (Figure 4). Each table focused on one type of actors (i.e., veterinary practitioners and their representatives, farmers and their representatives, veterinary students, and other actors). At the end of each discussion, the participants pointed out the most important needs and expectations by the targeted actors in their table and ranked them. In each table, the discussion was supported by a facilitator who gave a short introduction at the start of each rotation to inform the incoming group about the input of previous groups. In addition, a reporter was assigned to each table to share information about the discussions with all participants at the end of the World Café. A strength of the World Café was the participation of the relevant stakeholders in the respective groups (so not only scientists but also, for example, students in the students’ group and farmers in the farmers’ group).

2.3. Practical Recommendations

General recommendations, timing (Box 1), and specific recommendations for facilitators (Box 2) were presented to all participants in a plenary session.

3. Results

The main needs and expectations are summarized and depicted per group of actors involved in livestock biosecurity training: private veterinarians (Table 1), farmers (Table 2), veterinary students (Table 3), and other actors (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The main finding of the study is that biosecurity training needs differ from one actor to another because they have different levels of scientific/practical knowledge, different workloads, and different needs. The information collected is relevant whenever designing training and education programs in livestock biosecurity.

Both individual approaches, such as the interview of an expert, or approaches involving the interaction between the study participants, such as Delphi, benchmarking, focus group discussion, and the World Café methods, exist to collect data or ideas from people or a group of people [21]. In this study, the World Café method was applied because it is an appreciated and inspiring method that allows collaborative conversations, hence stimulating creativity and collective wisdom and sharing practical knowledge [9, 21]. While in some World Café studies, the consensus and dissensus are assessed (e.g., [17]), this assessment was not performed in this study because the objective of the workshop was to achieve a collective listing and ranking of needs and expectations related to livestock biosecurity training.

Another parameter sometimes followed in a World Café is the level of saturation of ideas [22]. According to each group facilitator and reporter of this World Café, a certain degree of saturation [23] was achieved after the passage of four groups of participants at each table (topic). This may be related to the number of participants or groups of participants involved in the World Café, the good mixing of participants per group, the countries of origin of participants, and/or a good animation permitting the active and balanced participation of each participant.

The following elements describe the most important needs and expectations for biosecurity training as resulting from the World Café. Whatever the group of actors, the main and commonly believed need was related to promoting a mixed approach that includes both theoretical and practical training on livestock biosecurity. Education and training programs designed with more interactive (ideally face-to-face), communicative, and participatory approaches had a positive impact on the assimilation of information and the effective implementation of control strategies [24]. For farmers, for example, resolving problems, a proper selection of methods and a good balance between practical (70%) and theory (30%) were recommended [25].

In a WOAH survey, most of the country participants requested farm biosecurity support training [26]. For farmers, according to the World Café, the strategical calendarization of training and its short duration were believed to be important due to the heavy workload. Several reminders of key aspects of biosecurity were also thought to be useful. These findings agree with the agricultural trainings’ guidelines, which recommend to choose the right time and the best length for trainings, depending on the needs and availability of farmers, which naturally depend on their workload and duties but also on their household responsibilities. For instance, individuals may have varying availability based on their daily responsibilities, with some potentially having heavier involvement in household duties like childcare or other activities. This can be influenced by individual circumstances rather than gender assumptions [27]. Furthermore, the practice of repeating training was previously acknowledged as a strategy to enhance the implementation of livestock biosecurity measures [28]. Practicing a task repeatedly is useful to learn a new skill and to increase its performance [29]. In addition, an experience-based (rather than exposure-based) training protocol may allow a better transference of skills to related tasks [30].

According to the World Café, creating a good knowledge of the main principles of livestock biosecurity was a basic-essential requirement for veterinary students. This need was previously listed in the WOAH (OIE) Global Conference on Evolving Veterinary Education for a Safer World [31] and included in the Veterinary Education Core Curriculum WOAH Guidelines [32]. The main principles of livestock biosecurity are included in different book chapters (e.g., [33, 34]) as well as biosecurity standard operating procedures (e.g., [35]).

For transporters, training on best practices of cleaning and disinfection of vehicles and the development of clear protocols were believed to be the most important needs. Standard operating procedures for transport biosecurity include cleaning and disinfecting the vehicle that has transported the live animals and preventing the transporter from entering barns to avoid contact with animals on the farm [36]. As an example, the process of cleaning and disinfection of animal transport vehicles after unloading animals at the abattoir is an important step related to biosecurity and a critical control point regarding proper hygiene [37]. A recent German survey in five abattoirs (750 vehicles included) indicated an important margin of improvement as, depending on the abattoir, 31%–97% of all vehicles were only cleaned and as little as 3% up to a max of 59% were both cleaned and disinfected [37]. In order to engage stakeholders in livestock biosecurity, their integration is needed in the assessment, management, and communication of risks concerning animal health and biosecurity [38].

Consumers as stakeholders need to understand the role that livestock biosecurity can play in the prevention of the spread of pathogens and its repercussion on the cost of animal products that diseases might have. Indeed, the decision to implement biosecurity measures is partially related to the risk of the disease faced by farms [39, 40]. The two components of risk to be considered include the likelihood of disease occurrence and the severity of disease consequences [41]. According to the WOAH, 60% of pathogens that cause human diseases originate from domestic animals or wildlife, 75% of emerging infectious human diseases have an animal origin, and 80% of pathogens that are of bioterrorism concern originate from animals [32]. Costs of diseases are a high concern, and net financial costs associated with an epidemic of both zoonotic and non-zoonotic animal diseases and vector-borne diseases may be substantial. To illustrate the costs of diseases, some examples of various species are proposed hereafter. Indeed, the 2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic in the United Kingdom generated losses of €193 million for sheep farmers [42]. In Niger, at the cattle herd level, the economic impact of foot-and-mouth disease was estimated at €499 [43]. In the Netherlands, losses reached €24.75 million and €1 million for the ovine and the caprine sectors, respectively, during the 2007 bluetongue epidemic [44]. Indeed, sheep can develop severe clinical signs and die from the disease [45]. For the Walloon Region (southern part of Belgium) and for the period 2006–2007, the average technical–economic losses due to the bluetongue (serotype 8) in cattle and small ruminants were estimated at €93 million [46]. The cost for the US industry due to the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus was estimated between $900 million and $1.8 billion from 2013 to 2014 [47, 48]. A recent evaluation of the direct cost of African swine fever outbreaks showed a wide variation between countries: US$ 826,911 in Vietnam, US$ 6,196,760 in North Macedonia, and over US$ 58 million in the Philippines [49]. Total losses associated with the 2007–2011 Q fever outbreak that occurred in the Netherlands were estimated at €307 million, along with a human burden of 2,462 disability-adjusted life years [50].

When considering the delivery of training, a mixture of formal and informal training was proposed by the participants of the World Café, and some of them mentioned the following tools: “on demand” video capsules, leaflets, infographics, radio podcasts, and TV-program learning. According to Noe [51], training effectiveness is determined by four levels of training outcomes: (i) trainees’ reactions to the program content and training process (reaction); (ii) knowledge or skill acquisition (learning); (iii) behavior change (behavior); and (iv) improvements in tangible individual or organizational outcomes such as turnover, accidents, or productivity (results). Moreover, motivation and environmental conditions influence the training effectiveness [51]. An effective training is possible when the competency, practice-oriented approach, and active and interactive teaching methods are used [24, 52]. Although formal learning is the main route to recognized training qualifications required to enter certain jobs, informal learning acquired through experience in work and life is the most frequently used form of learning [52]. Combining formal, nonformal, and informal learning was recommended to develop workforce skills [52]. Several innovative teaching methods have recently been developed, and some are cited in the following sentences as examples. According to the literature, game elements (gamification) might increase participants’ cognitive engagement and change of their priorities or strategies during learning. Game elements induce better training performance but comparable learning gains as nongame-based training group [53]. For livestock biosecurity, recent game elements [54] and digital extension interactive voice response [55] were proposed in order to assess strategic, tactical, and operational decision-making and risk in a livestock production chain [56]. Despite some evidence suggesting that innovative training programs are effective in improving the performance of health workers [57], more studies to assess properly the impacts of training methods on the biosecurity skills, knowledge, behavior, and attitude change of trainees are needed.

Regarding other actors (producers, advisors, managers, policymakers, veterinary statutory bodies, wildlife managers, gamekeepers, and hunters), training to develop communication skills was emphasized. Despite the increasing emphasis on the teaching and assessment of communication skills [58] and a clear demonstration of the advantage of interactions between these actors (farmers and private veterinarians regarding livestock biosecurity), there is also a need to evaluate the existing communication-specific training received by these persons and hence to explore to what extent suboptimal communication skills negatively impact the uptake of biosecurity practices [59].

The results of this study give valuable first information on needs and expectations related to livestock biosecurity training in the EU. However, more extended research involving more participants from the different actors/countries inside and outside the EU, with different coverage of cultures and education, is recommended. To scale the study up to other continents, more participants originating from outside Europe should be engaged. To obtain relevant additional information on training needs, a survey on existing trainings per group of actors (farmers, veterinarians, veterinary students, and other actors) is recommended. We can also use the findings of this study to redesign biosecurity training programs in a proper way.

This study also highlighted the balanced request of both principles and practical aspects of livestock biosecurity, including the assessment of biosecurity compliance and the improvement/implementation of biosecurity action plans [56, 60]. This is in line with the FAO effort on the progressive management pathway for animal biosecurity [61].

5. Conclusions

Livestock biosecurity has been deemed pivotal by the EU AHL [62] and by the FAO by the Progressive Management Pathway for Terrestrial Animal Biosecurity (FAO-PMP-TAB) [61]. In this study, the World Café was a useful method to discuss, identify, and rank the needs and expectations of different categories of actors related to livestock biosecurity training. Different needs and expectations were highlighted for each actor, revealing a multifaceted challenge for the aspiring biosecurity trainers. Indeed, a mixture of motivating, practical, and theoretical training is needed to ensure that the biosecurity skills of trainees are enhanced effectively.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are presented in this publication.

Additional Points

Limitation of the Study: The representativity in epidemiology and the saturation of information in sociology are not in opposition. Both permit inference. Sample representativeness is the degree to which a sample “looks like” the true population on some set of characteristics. Data saturation is the degree to which adding respondents to the sample will not include additional novel information [63]. Data saturation is frequently used when a sampling frame is not available (the case of this exploratory study). While a first list of needs and expectations was obtained by this World Café, the scaling of the study to other continents was proposed to capture better the difference in education and culture. In addition, other possibilities of statistical analysis of the data exist (e.g.) and should be the inclusion of nonparametric statistical techniques like those used in expert elicitation (e.g., [64–66]) or to submit the list of needs and expectations captured during this World Café to representative stakeholders for voting the relative importance of the different needs and expectations (e.g., [2]).

Disclosure

Ilias Chantziaras is the holder of the Academic Chair in Biosecurity in Animal Production at Ghent University that has been endowed by CID LINES, an Ecolab Company. This funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Claude Saegerman, Jarkko K. Niemi, and Marie-France Humblet contributed to the study design. Claude Saegerman, Alberto Allepuz, and Ilias Chantziaras organized the World Café. Nancy De Briyne, Wiebke Jansen, Alain Cantaloube, Marcel Heylen, Tarmo Niine, Julia Gabrielle Jerab, Jarkko K. Niemi, and Maria Eleni Filippitzi were animators or reporters/hosts of the World Café. Claude Saegerman drafted the paper. Maria Rodrigues da Costa, Jarkko K. Niemi, and Maria Eleni Filippitzi reviewed and edited it for clarity.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge and thank all participants of the workshop and the World Café discussions for their time, engagement, knowledge, and willingness to share their experiences. This publication is based on work from COST action CA20103, “Biosecurity enhanced through training evaluation and raising awareness (BETTER),” supported by European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST).

References

European Parliament and the Council, “Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (Animal Health Law),” Official Journal of the European Union, vol. L84, pp. 1–208, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Saegerman, G. Parisi, J. Niemi et al., “Evaluation survey on agreement with existing definitions of biosecurity with a focus on livestock,” Animals, vol. 13, no. 9, Article ID 1518, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Saegerman, F. Dal Pozzo, and M.-F. Humblet, “Reducing hazards for humans from animals: emerging and re-emerging zoonoses,” Italian Journal of Public Health, vol. 9, pp. 13–24, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Renault, M.-F. Humblet, and C. Saegerman, “Biosecurity concept: origins, evolution and perspectives,” Animals, vol. 12, no. 1, Article ID 63, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Lahuerta-Marin, M. L. Brennan, G. Finney, M. J. H. O’Hagan, and C. Jack, “Key actors in driving behavioural change in relation to on-farm biosecurity; a Northern Ireland perspective,” Irish Veterinary Journal, vol. 71, no. 1, Article ID 14, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Renault, M.-F. Humblet, P. Pham, and C. Saegerman, “Biosecurity at cattle farms: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats,” Pathogens, vol. 10, no. 10, Article ID 1315, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Campbell, M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. R. Weick Jr, Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
E. V. Estacio and T. Karic, “The World Café: an innovative method to facilitate reflections on internationalisation in higher education,” Journal of Further and Higher Education, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 731–745, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Recchia, A. Dodaro, E. De Marco, and A. Zizza, “A critical look to community wisdom: applying the world café method to health promotion and prevention,” The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, vol. 37, no. S1, pp. 220–242, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Burke and K. Sheldon, “Encouraging workplace innovation using ’World Cafe’ model,” Nursing Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 14–19, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Ritch and C. Brennan, “Using World Cafe and drama to explore older people’s experience of financial products and services,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 405–411, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Jongeneel and P. Randall, “Using World Cafe´ to rebuild optimism at Renault Trucks UK,” SCM, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 28–31, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
A. MacFarlane, R. Galvin, M. O’Sullivan et al., “Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA,” Family Practice, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 278–284, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. D. Biondo, S. King, B. Minhas, K. Fassbender, J. E. Simon, and on behalf of the Advance Care Planning Collaborative Research and Innovation Opportunities Program (ACP CRIO), “How to increase public participation in advance care planning: findings from a World Café to elicit community group perspectives,” BMC Public Health, vol. 19, Article ID 679, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. MacLeod, G. D. Jones, H. M. Anderson, and R. A. Mumford, “Plant health and food security, linking science, economics, policy and industry,” Food Security, vol. 8, pp. 17–25, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Silva and E. Guenther, “Setting the research agenda for measuring sustainability performance—systematic application of the World Café method,” Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, vol. 9, pp. 455–469, 2028.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Jori, E. Chenais, F. Boinas et al., “Application of the World Café method to discuss the efficiency of African swine fever control strategies in European wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 185, Article ID 105178, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Tan and J. Brown, “The world café in Singapore: creating a learning culture through dialogue,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 83–90, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
The World Café Community Foundation, “El Cerrito, CA 94530, United States of America,” https://theworldcafe.com/.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Carson, “Designing a public conversation using the World Cafe method,” Social Alternatives, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 10–14, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Schiele, S. Krummaker, P. Hoffmann, and R. Kowalski, “The, research world café, as method of scientific enquiry: combining rigor with relevance and speed,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 140, pp. 280–296, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Cleary, J. Horsfall, and M. Hayter, “Data collection and sampling in qualitative research: does size matter ?” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 473–475, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Kidd and M. B. Parshall, “Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research,” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 293–308, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Kutbiddinovaa, A. A. Eromasovaa, and M. A. Romanova, “The use of interactive methods in the educational process of the higher education institution,” International Journal of Environmental and Sciences Education, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 6557–6572, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Y. Reddy and T. V. Kumar, “Training: an effective approach for farmer’s development,” in Agriculture and Forestry: Current Trends, Perspectives, pp. 300–312, Immortal Publications, 2020, Issues–II.
View at: Google Scholar
P. A. Windsor, “How to implement farm biosecurity: the role of government and private sector,” Asia—OIE Regional Commission, World Organization for Animal Health, pp. 1–19, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
People in need Czech Republic, “Agricultural trainings’ guideline,” 2017, https://resources.peopleinneed.net/documents/612-trainings-guideline-v4-final.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
EIP-AGRI, “Report of the workshop “biosecurity at farm level: challenges for innovation”,” 2015, Brussels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/field_event_attachments/2015-ws-biosecurity_report_20150618_0.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Kami, G. Meyer, P. Jezzard, M. M. Adams, R. Turner, and L. G. Ungerleider, “Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning,” Nature, vol. 377, no. 6545, pp. 155–158, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Patel, J. Craig, M. Schumacher, M. K. Burns, I. Florescu, and R. Vinjamuri, “Synergy repetition training versus task repetition training in acquiring new skill,” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 5, Article ID 9, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Saegerman, R. Lancelot, M.-F. Humblet, E. Thiry, and H. Seegers, “Renewed veterinary education is needed to improve the surveillance and control of World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) listed diseases, diseases of wildlife and rare events,” in Proceedings of the First OIE Global Conference on Evolving Veterinary Education for a Safer World, pp. 63–77, World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, France, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
Organisation Mondiale de la Santé Animale, World Organisation for Animal Health, and Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal, Veterinary Education Core Curriculum OIE Guidelines, World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, France, 2013.
J. Dewulf and F. Van Immerseel, “General principles of biosecurity in animal production and veterinary medicine,” in Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: from Principles to Practice, pp. 63–76, CABI, Acco Leuven, Belgium, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Saegerman and M.-F. Humblet, “Biosecurity in veterinary practices and clinics,” in Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: from Principles to Practice, pp. 389–409, CABI, Acco Leuven, Belgium, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
FVM-University of Liège, “Biosecurity SOPs applied to the faculty of veterinary medicine, Liège University,” 2019, Document SOP-FVM-02-REV3-2019, edited by the FVM Biosecurity Unit, 2019, 193 pp https://www.fmv-biosecurite.ulg.ac.be/generale/medias/PDFs/Manuel_Bios_SOPs_Final.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
Canadian Pork Council, “Transportation,” 2013, Transport biosecurity, Section 9.3, 4pp https://www.cpc-ccp.com/file.aspx?id=d6caa084-a690-4bf1-833b-908223bcbcdf.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Weber and D. Meemken, “Hygienic measures during animal transport to abattoirs—a status quo analysis of the current cleaning and disinfection of animal transporters in Germany,” Porcine Health Management, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Reed and R. Curzon, “Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a literature review,” Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 15–38, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. I. Valeeva, M. A. P. M. van Asseldonk, and G. B. C. Backus, “Perceived risk and strategy efficacy as motivators of risk management strategy adoption to prevent animal diseases in pig farming,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 284–295, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Brennan, N. Wright, W. Wapenaar et al., “Exploring attitudes and beliefs towards implementing cattle disease prevention and control measures: a qualitative study with dairy farmers in Great Britain,” Animals, vol. 6, no. 10, Article ID 61, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Collineau and K. D. C. Stärk, “How to motivate farmers to implement biosecurity measures,” in Biosecurity in Animal Production and Veterinary Medicine: from Principles to Practice, pp. 95–113, CABI, Acco Leuven, Belgium, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Thompson, P. Muriel, D. Russell et al., “Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom in 2001,” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 675–687, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Souley Kouato, E. Thys, V. Renault et al., “Spatio-temporal patterns of foot-and-mouth disease transmission in cattle between 2007 and 2015 and quantitative assessment of the economic impact of the disease in Niger,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1049–1066, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. G. J. Velthuis, H. W. Saatkamp, M. C. M. Mourits, A. A. de Koeijer, and A. R. W. Elbers, “Financial consequences of the Dutch bluetongue serotype 8 epidemics of 2006 and 2007,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 294–304, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. W. Elbers, A. Backx, K. Mintiens et al., “Field observations during the bluetongue serotype 8 epidemic in 2006. II. Morbidity and mortality rate, case fatality and clinical recovery in sheep and cattle in the Netherlands,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 87, no. 1-2, pp. 31–40, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-B. Hanon, A. Uyttenhoef, F. Fecher-Bourgeois et al., “Économiques directes et indirectes subies par les éleveurs wallons dans le cadre de la fièvre catarrhale ovine (sérotype 8) durant la période 2006-2007,” Epidémiologie et Santé Animale, vol. 56, pp. 187–195, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
P. L. Paarlberg, “Updated estimated economic welfare impacts of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV),” 2014, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/174517/2/14-4.Updated%20Estimated%20Economic%20Welfare%20Impacts%20of%20PEDV.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
L. L. Schulz and G. T. Tonsor, “Assessment of the economic impacts of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus in the United States,” Journal of Animal Science, vol. 93, no. 11, pp. 5111–5118, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Casal, D. Tago, P. Pineda et al., “Evaluation of the economic impact of classical and African swine fever epidemics using OutCosT, a new spreadsheet-based tool,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. e2474–e2484, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. P. M. van Asseldonk, J. Prins, and R. H. M. Bergevoet, “Economic assessment of Q fever in the Netherlands,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 112, no. 1-2, pp. 27–34, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Noe, “Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness,” The Academy of Management Review, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 736–749, 1986.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Misko, “Combining formal, non-formal and informal learning for workforce skill development,” in The National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), p. 42, NCVER, Adelaide, Australia, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Ninaus, R. Cortez, I. Hazin et al., “The added value of game elements: better training performance but comparable learning gains,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1917–1939, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Koliba, S. C. Merrill, A. Zia et al., “Assessing strategic, tactical, and operational decision-making and risk in a livestock production chain through experimental simulation platforms,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 9, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Dione, E. Kangethe, E. J. Poole, N. Ndiwa, E. Ouma, and I. Dror, “Digital extension interactive voice response (IVR) mLearning: lessons learnt from Uganda pig value chain,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 8, Article ID 611263, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Smith, C. Saegerman, and J.-P. Vaillancourt, “Promoting compliance with biosecurity in animal production,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 10, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Elliott, K. Murrell, P. Harper, T. Stephens, and C. Pellowe, “A comprehensive systematic review of the use of simulation in the continuing education and training of qualified medical, nursing and midwifery staff,” JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, vol. 9, no. 17, pp. 538–587, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Mossop, C. Gray, A. Blaxter et al., “Communication skills training: what the vet schools are doing,” Veterinary Record, vol. 176, no. 5, pp. 114–117, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Chomyn, W. Wapenaar, I. F. Richens et al., “Assessment of a joint farmer-veterinarian discussion about biosecurity using novel social interaction analyses,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 212, Article ID 105831, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-F. Humblet and C. Saegerman, “Internal audits as a tool to assess the compliance with biosecurity rules in a veterinary faculty,” Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 10, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
FAO, Progressive Management Pathway for Terrestrial Animal Biosecurity (FAO-PMP-TAB), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Roma, Italy, 2023.
European Commission, Using Learning Outcomes—European Qualifications Framework Series: Note 4, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site
G. Guest, A. Bunce, and L. Johnson, “How many interviews are enough ? An experiment with data saturation and variability,” Field Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 59–82, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bianchini, M.-F. Humblet, M. B. I. Cargnel et al., “Prioritization of livestock transboundary diseases in Belgium using a multicriteria decision analysis tool based on drivers of emergence,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 344–376, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Saegerman, J. Bianchini, C. J. Snoeck et al., “First expert elicitation of knowledge on drivers of emergence of influenza D in Europe,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3349–3359, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Saegerman, J. Evrard, J.-Y. Houtain et al., “First expert elicitation of knowledge on drivers of emergence of bovine besnoitiosis in Europe,” Pathogens, vol. 11, no. 7, Article ID 753, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Claude Saegerman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

217

Downloads

102

Citations