ArticleVeterinary record open2019
Preference of veterinarians to select an udder health programme for milk producers.
Article in Veterinary record open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis investigation was carried out to gain more insight about the preference of veterinarians on the implementation of an udder health programme (UHP) in a dairy farm.
methodsA choice experiment was designed to elicit the preferences of the participants. The study population consisted of 36 veterinarians from Argentina specialised on milk quality. The choice experiment offered several UHPs, which were combinations of some of the interventions included in the so-called five-point plan. To reduce bias among the participants, the UHPs offered were unlabelled and considered two farm contexts: one was on a pasture system and the other was on a dry-lot with pasture access system. The basic criteria (the so-called attribute) to describe veterinarians' preferences for each UHP proposed were efficacy on clinical mastitis (CM) and bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) reduction, cost and technical support. The data collected were analysed using conjoint analysis.
resultsUHP cost and UHP efficacy on BMSCC and CM had a significant influence on veterinarians' ranking decisions under both dairy production contexts. The efficacy on CM was the most important attribute to prefer a particular UHP, while technical assistance was the least important attribute considered. The attributes related to efficacy on both BMSCC and CM explained over 60 per cent of the total importance of all attributes.
conclusionTo the authors' knowledge, this is the first research in South America focused on studying veterinarians' preferences to suggest a UHP. The cost and efficacy attributes were the veterinarians' top priority attributes to decide the best UHP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.