Prioritization, resource allocation and utilization of decision support tools in animal health: Results of qualitative interviews with experts.

A follow up to an online questionnaire survey (in a kind of a sequential study design), qualitative assessment was made on the views of selected animal health experts on disease prioritization methods, resource allocation and use of decision-support tools. This was done through in-depth interviews with experts working for national or international organizations and sectors. A semi-structured question guide was formulated based on the information generated in the online questionnaire and a systematic content analysis of animal and human health manuals for disease prioritization and resource allocation. In-depth, one-on-one, online interviews on the process of disease prioritization, animal health decision-making, types of prioritization tools and aspects of improvements in the tools were conducted during March and April 2022 with 20 expert informants. Prioritization approaches reported by experts were either single criterion-based or multiple criteria-based. Experts appreciated the single-criterion-based approach (quantitative) for its objectivity in contrast to multicriteria prioritization approaches which were criticized for their subjectivity. Interviews with the experts revealed a perceived lack of quality and reliable data to inform disease prioritization, especially in smallholder livestock production systems. It was found that outputs of disease prioritization exercises do not generally directly influence resource allocation in animal health and highlighted the paucity of funding for animal health compared to other agricultural sectors. The experts considered that the available decision-support tools in animal health need improvement in terms of data visualization for interpretation, management decision making and advocacy. Further recommendations include minimizing subjective biases by increasing the availability and quality of data and improving the translation of disease prioritization outputs into actions and the resources to deliver those actions. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Current and potential use of animal disease data by stakeholders in the global south and north.

What cannot be measured will not be managed. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) will generate information on animal disease burdens by species, production system, type and gender of farmer and consumer, geographical region, and time period. To understand the demand for burden of animal disease (BAD) data and how end-users might benefit from this, we reviewed the literature on animal diseases prioritisation processes (ADPP) and conducted a survey of BAD information users. The survey covered their current use of data and prioritizations as well as their needs for different, more, and better information. We identified representative (geography, sector, species) BAD experts from the authors' networks and publicly available documents and e-mailed 1485 experts. Of 791 experts successfully contacted, 271 responded (34% response rate), and 185 complete and valid responses were obtained. Most respondents came from the public sector followed by academia/research, and most were affiliated to institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Of the six ADPPs commonly featured in literature, only three were recognised by more than 40% of experts. An additional 23 ADPPs were used. Awareness of ADDPs varied significantly by respondents. Respondents ranked animal disease priorities. We used exploded logit to combine first, second and third disease priorities to better understand prioritzation and their determinants. Expert priorities differed significantly from priorities identified by the ADDPs, and also from the priorities stated veterinary services as reported in a survey for a World Organisation of Animal Health (WOAH) technical item. Respondents identified 15 different uses of BAD data. The most common use was presenting evidence (publications, official reports, followed by disease management, policy development and proposal writing). Few used disease data for prioritzation or resource allocation, fewer routinely used economic data for decision making, and less than half were aware of the use of decision support tools (DSTs). Nearly all respondents considered current BAD metrics inadequate, most considered animal health information insufficiently available and not evidence-based, and most expressed concerns that decision-making processes related to animal health lacked transparency and fairness. Cluster analysis suggested three clusters of BAD users and will inform DSTs to help them better meet their specific objectives. We conclude that there is a lack of satisfaction with current BAD information, and with existing ADDPs, contributing to sub-optimal decision making. Improved BAD data would have multiple uses by different stakeholders leading to better evidenced decisions and policies; moreover, clients will need support (including DSTs) to optimally use BAD information.

Bringing together emerging and endemic zoonoses surveillance: shared challenges and a common solution.

Early detection of disease outbreaks in human and animal populations is crucial to the effective surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. However, there are marked geographical disparities in capacity for early detection of outbreaks, which limit the effectiveness of global surveillance strategies. Linking surveillance approaches for emerging and neglected endemic zoonoses, with a renewed focus on existing disease problems in developing countries, has the potential to overcome several limitations and to achieve additional health benefits. Poor reporting is a major constraint to the surveillance of both emerging and endemic zoonoses, and several important barriers to reporting can be identified: (i) a lack of tangible benefits when reports are made; (ii) a lack of capacity to enforce regulations; (iii) poor communication among communities, institutions and sectors; and (iv) complexities of the international regulatory environment. Redirecting surveillance efforts to focus on endemic zoonoses in developing countries offers a pragmatic approach that overcomes some of these barriers and provides support in regions where surveillance capacity is currently weakest. In addition, this approach addresses immediate health and development problems, and provides an equitable and sustainable mechanism for building the culture of surveillance and the core capacities that are needed for all zoonotic pathogens, including emerging disease threats.

Knowledge and attitude towards zoonoses among animal health workers and livestock keepers in Arusha and Tanga, Tanzania.

Zoonoses are infections naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and humans. An exploratory questionnaire-based survey of animal health workers(n=36) and livestock keepers(n=43) was carried out from April 2001 to March 2002 in Tanga and Arusha regions, northern Tanzania, to assess local knowledge, attitudes and public awareness for animal zoonoses. A combination of closed and open-ended questions, focus group discussions and ranking techniques were employed to gather information on perceptions concerning the type of zoonotic diseases prevalent in the study area, level of risk, mode of transmission and methods of preventing disease transmission from animals to humans. The results demonstrated that rabies, tuberculosis and anthrax were considered the three most common zoonotic diseases. Sharing living accommodation with animals, consumption of un-treated livestock products (i.e. milk, meat or eggs) and attending to parturition were perceived as routes of transmission. Knowledge about zoonosis was higher in smallholder dairy (92%; 33/36) than traditional livestock keepers (P<0.05). On the contrary, the perceived risk of contracting a zoonosis was significantly higher in traditional livestock (86%; 6/7) than smallholder dairy keepers (P<0.05). Stratification of the risk of zoonosis by farm location revealed that rural farms (85%; 7/8) were considered significantly at a higher risk when compared to peri or urban located farms (P<0.05). Most of the respondents stated cooking of meat or boiling of milk as a way to prevent transmission. However, there was a significant difference in the perception of the risk posed by contact with potentially infected animals /or animal products with animal health workers having a much higher level of perception compared to livestock keepers. These results suggest that in the Tanga and Arusha, Tanzania, patchy awareness and knowledge of zoonoses, combined with food consumption habits and poor animal husbandry are likely to expose respondents to an increased risk of contracting zoonoses. Public health promotion on education and inter-disciplinary one-health collaboration between vets, public health practitioners and policy makers should result in a more efficient and effective joint approach to the diagnosis and control of zoonoses in Tanzania.