Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe. / Häsler, Barbara; Garza, Maria; Bisdorff, Betty; Léger, Anaïs; Tavornpanich, Saraya; Peyre, Marisa; Lindberg, Ann; van Schaik, Gerdien; Alban, Lis; Stärk, Katharina D.C.

I: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, Bind 6, 375, 2019.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Häsler, B, Garza, M, Bisdorff, B, Léger, A, Tavornpanich, S, Peyre, M, Lindberg, A, van Schaik, G, Alban, L & Stärk, KDC 2019, 'Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe', Frontiers in Veterinary Science, bind 6, 375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00375

APA

Häsler, B., Garza, M., Bisdorff, B., Léger, A., Tavornpanich, S., Peyre, M., Lindberg, A., van Schaik, G., Alban, L., & Stärk, K. D. C. (2019). Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, [375]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00375

Vancouver

Häsler B, Garza M, Bisdorff B, Léger A, Tavornpanich S, Peyre M o.a. Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019;6. 375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00375

Author

Häsler, Barbara ; Garza, Maria ; Bisdorff, Betty ; Léger, Anaïs ; Tavornpanich, Saraya ; Peyre, Marisa ; Lindberg, Ann ; van Schaik, Gerdien ; Alban, Lis ; Stärk, Katharina D.C. / Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe. I: Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2019 ; Bind 6.

Bibtex

@article{09a4f0cd17504317ac9a3f8e312ac4b9,
title = "Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe",
abstract = "Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.",
keywords = "animal health, disease control, evaluation, standards, surveillance",
author = "Barbara H{\"a}sler and Maria Garza and Betty Bisdorff and Ana{\"i}s L{\'e}ger and Saraya Tavornpanich and Marisa Peyre and Ann Lindberg and {van Schaik}, Gerdien and Lis Alban and St{\"a}rk, {Katharina D.C.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.3389/fvets.2019.00375",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
journal = "Frontiers in Veterinary Science",
issn = "2297-1769",
publisher = "Frontiers Media",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the Adoption of Recommended Standards, Novel Approaches, and Best Practices for Animal Health Surveillance by Decision Makers in Europe

AU - Häsler, Barbara

AU - Garza, Maria

AU - Bisdorff, Betty

AU - Léger, Anaïs

AU - Tavornpanich, Saraya

AU - Peyre, Marisa

AU - Lindberg, Ann

AU - van Schaik, Gerdien

AU - Alban, Lis

AU - Stärk, Katharina D.C.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

AB - Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

KW - animal health

KW - disease control

KW - evaluation

KW - standards

KW - surveillance

U2 - 10.3389/fvets.2019.00375

DO - 10.3389/fvets.2019.00375

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31781579

AN - SCOPUS:85075351664

VL - 6

JO - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

JF - Frontiers in Veterinary Science

SN - 2297-1769

M1 - 375

ER -

ID: 234220612