Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
The effectiveness of health interventions against bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is influenced by several “non-biological” factors that may hamper bTB detection and control. Although the engagement of stakeholders is a key factor for the eradication programme’s success, social factors have been often ignored in the control programmes of animal diseases, especially in developed countries. In this study, we used a qualitative approach to investigate perceptions, opinions, attitudes, and beliefs of farmers, and veterinarians who may influence the effectiveness of the Spanish bTB eradication programme. The study was carried out in two phases. First, 13 key representatives of different groups involved in the programme were interviewed through exploratory interviews to identify most relevant themes circulating in the population. Interviews focused on strong and weak points of the programme; reasons for failure to achieve eradication; benefits of being disease free; future perspectives, and proposed changes to the programme. Based on these results, a thematic guide was developed and detailed information was gained through face-to-face in-depth interviews conducted on a purposive sample of 39 farmers and veterinarians. Data were analysed following an ethnographic methodology. Main results suggested that the bTB programme is perceived as a law enforcement duty without an adequate motivation of some stakeholders and a general feeling of distrust arose. The complexity of bTB epidemiology combined with gaps in knowledge and weak communication throughout stakeholders contributed to causing disbeliefs, which in turn generated different kinds of guesses and interpretations. Low reliability in the routine skin test for bTB screening was expressed and the level of confidence on test results interpretation was linked with skills and experience of public and private veterinarians in the field. Lack of training for farmers and pressure faced by veterinarians during field activities also emerged. Few benefits of being bTB free were perceived and comparative grievances referred to wildlife and other domestic reservoirs, sector-specific legislation for bullfighting farms, and the absence of specific health legislation for game hunting farms were reported. Understanding reasons for demotivation and scepticism may help institutions to ensure stakeholders’ collaboration and increase the acceptability of control measures leading to an earlier achievement of eradication.
Highlights
The influence of social factors on public health interventions is well known in human medicine and several studies taking these aspects into account have been done [1,2,3]; these aspects have been often ignored in the implementation of animal health programmes
Concerns were expressed in relation to the coordination with the labs, the experience of official veterinarians who supervise private veterinarians in performing the single intradermal test (SIT), the lack of homogeneity in the implementation criteria of the bovine tuberculosis (bTB) eradication programme and the lack of human resources
We interviewed cattle farmers; Researchers with experience on bTB; Veterinarians working in the diagnostic labs: with responsibilities in the performance of the tests that are performed in the bTB eradication programme; Private veterinarians who conduct bTB testing; and Official veterinarians working at different levels: (i) Autonomous community level with responsibilities in the coordination of the programme in their autonomous community
Summary
The influence of social factors on public health interventions is well known in human medicine and several studies taking these aspects into account have been done [1,2,3]; these aspects have been often ignored in the implementation of animal health programmes. The situation has changed and the interest on the influence of social factors in the control programmes of animal diseases has greatly increased. The fundamental principle of participatory research is that emphasises “knowledge for action” and a “bottom up approach” in contrast to conventional research, which is more “top-down” [10]. The use of such approaches provides a voice to the different stakeholders increasing, in that way, the understanding of health problems and the options for their prevention, control, and surveillance [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
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.
