Assessing the use of animal health platforms: User's needs, preferences and constraints. Issue 2 (21st February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bianchini, Juana; Simons, Xavier; Faes, Christel; Nicolas, Gaëlle; Vilain, Aline; Hendrickx, Guy; Saegerman, Claude
• Is Part Of: Transboundary and emerging diseases. Volume 69:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 501
• Page End: 515
• Publication Date: 2021-02-21
• Subjects: animal and public health. -- animal health systems -- likert scale -- online cross‐sectional survey -- risk analysis; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1111/tbed.14008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1865-1674

Abstract

Abstract: Animal health information systems or risk analysis tools are indispensable not only for animal health surveillance, but also to observe the evolution and risk of disease incursion into a disease‐free area. Given the various information that can be derived from these both animal information systems and risk analysis tools, different international and national organizations have customized or created their own systems/tools to provide specific information for use by the respective countries. Moreover, with the increase of technology and data storage, they have become more accessible and widely used by professionals in animal and human health sciences. This study aimed to establish user's preferences, needs and constraints in respect of these animal information systems and risk analysis tools. An online survey was conducted and answered by 213 respondents from 132 countries. The respondents were animal health or public health professionals in different employment sectors (mostly in government, research and university institutions) and various fields of competency (highest for animal and public health). The majority of respondents used the animal health information systems frequently and on a weekly basis, with prevention measures of diseases being regarded as the most useful information. Descriptive epidemiology was more used/needed than analytical epidemiology. Risk analysis was performed by the majority of the respondents (70%), using a qualitative approach more than a quantitative or semi‐qualitative. The primary objectives were to produce risk assessment and preparedness in areas involving origin and spread of animal diseases. The features most sought after in risk analysis tools were pathways of introduction and spread assessment. The level of satisfaction was higher for the platform which is most used by the respondents. Overall, these results could be taken into consideration when improving an already available platform, or when creating a new efficient tool.