Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30995253›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Decision-making in livestock biosecurity practices amidst environmental and social uncertainty: Evidence from an experimental game.

Scott C Merrill, Christopher J Koliba, Susan M Moegenburg, Asim Zia, Jason Parker, Timothy Sellnow, Serge Wiltshire, Gabriela Bucini, Caitlin Danehy, Julia M Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Scott C MerrillDepartment of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5574-9703
Christopher J KolibaGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Susan M MoegenburgDepartment of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Asim ZiaGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Jason ParkerSchool of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University at Mansfield, Mansfield, Ohio, United States of America.
Timothy SellnowNicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Serge WiltshireDepartment of Food Systems, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Gabriela BuciniDepartment of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4876-2998
Caitlin DanehyDepartment of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Julia M SmithDepartment of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Livestock industries are vulnerable to disease threats, which can cost billions of dollars and have substantial negative social ramifications. Losses are mitigated through increased use of disease-related biosecurity practices, making increased biosecurity an industry goal. Currently, there is no industry-wide standard for sharing information about disease incidence or on-site biosecurity strategies, resulting in uncertainty regarding disease prevalence and biosecurity strategies employed by industry stakeholders. Using an experimental simulation game, with primarily student participants, we examined willingness to invest in biosecurity when confronted with disease outbreak scenarios. We varied the scenarios by changing the information provided about 1) disease incidence and 2) biosecurity strategy or response by production facilities to the threat of disease. Here we show that willingness to invest in biosecurity increases with increased information about disease incidence, but decreases with increased information about biosecurity practices used by nearby facilities. Thus, the type or context of the uncertainty confronting the decision maker may be a major factor influencing behavior. Our findings suggest that policies and practices that encourage greater sharing of disease incidence information should have the greatest benefit for protecting herd health.

Indexed as

Decision MakingGames, ExperimentalSecurity MeasuresAdolescentAdultAgricultureAnimal HusbandryAnimalsCluster AnalysisCommunicable Disease ControlDisease OutbreaksFemaleHealth PolicyHumansIncidenceInformation Dissemination

Identifiers

PMID30995253
PMCPMC6469775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.