Abstract
We assessed the effectiveness of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology in delivering biosecurity messages for the control of African swine fever (ASF) in Uganda using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 408 smallholder pig farmers. Our results show that IVR technology significantly improved knowledge of farmers who had not been exposed to training on biosecurity. Furthermore, it enhanced knowledge for farmers who had received face-to-face (f2f) training in biosecurity. This group of farmers recorded the highest knowledge gain following IVR training compared to farmers who did not receive f2f training. IVR technology was perceived by farmers as a new technology capable of transforming their lives because it is time efficient, has high potential for resource saving and flexibility. IVR also seems to be gender sensitive as it addresses some of the constraints women face in accessing conventional extension services such as time. IVR is an innovative way for delivery of advisory information to pig farmers. The scalability of IVR technology could further be explored and its feasibility assessed for wider use by the extension systems in Uganda and elsewhere.
Highlights
Agricultural extension/advisory services in Uganda face many challenges due to lack of capacity of the government to support long-term interventions
The study addressed the following research question: does Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology enhance traditional training approach? the objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of IVR technology on farmer knowledge about biosecurity
Masaka district was part of the “Smallholder Pig Value Chain Development Project” (SPVCD) in Uganda, which is a research for development program running since 2011 to improve pig value chains in the country [13]
Summary
Agricultural extension/advisory services in Uganda face many challenges due to lack of capacity of the government to support long-term interventions. Individual and group face-to-face (f2f) extension methods have been the standard ways to channel information to farmers These approaches have their limitations such as high cost of delivery [2], insufficient funds for supporting public extension, limited involvement of rural farmers and populations, women in extension processes, and lack of research and appropriate extension methods [3]. This limits coverage of extension services, across rural regions, and adapting technological packages to community-specific contexts [4].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
