Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38468332›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2024

Biosecurity measures for the prevention of African swine fever on German pig farms: comparison of farmers' own appraisals and external veterinary experts' evaluations.

Leonie Klein, Ursula Gerdes, Sandra Blome, Amely Campe, Elisabeth Grosse Beilage

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Leonie KleinDepartment of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health in the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University for Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Buenteweg 2, 30559, Hannover, Germany. leonie.klein@tiho-hannover.de.
Ursula GerdesNiedersaechsische Tierseuchenkasse (Animal Disease Fund), Bruehlstrasse 9, 30169, Hannover, Germany.
Sandra BlomeDepartment of Virology, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Suedufer 10, 17493, Greifswald - Insel Riems, Germany.
Amely CampeDepartment of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health in the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University for Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Buenteweg 2, 30559, Hannover, Germany.
Elisabeth Grosse BeilageField Station for Epidemiology, University for Veterinary Medicine, Hannover, Buescheler Strasse 9, 49456, Bakum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince its first introduction into the German wild boar population in 2020, African swine fever (ASF) has been spreading slowly from the eastern border westwards and has been introduced into eight domestic pig farms thus far. The European Food Safety Authority has named deficits in farm biosecurity and increased human activity as major risk factors for the introduction of the ASF virus into pig farms. Studies have shown that pig farms in Germany generally have a high level of biosecurity. However, veterinary practitioners and policy-makers have expressed concerns that not all pig farmers are appropriately prepared to deal with the threat of ASF. This study aimed to evaluate the level of biosecurity on pig farms in Lower Saxony and explore the reasons for deficits in the implementation of biosecurity measures. For this purpose, pig farmers were interviewed in open structured face-to-face interviews about their perception of ASF and biosecurity, and the implemented measures on their farms were assessed with a checklist. In the data analysis, the farmers' answers and the results of the biosecurity check were compared to gain further insights into the factors influencing the implementation of biosecurity measures on the farms.

resultsThe biosecurity check showed that on most farms, a high level of biosecurity had been implemented. Nevertheless, deficits were found concerning the fences and the delimitation of clean and dirty areas on farm grounds and in the anteroom. Overall, the farmers were well informed about ASF and had a realistic perception of their own biosecurity. They considered the farm layout, financial means and practicality of hygiene measures to be the main barriers to implementing biosecurity measures against ASF. However, the results also suggested that farmers' attitudes and legal regulations were major influencing factors.

conclusionThe results indicated a high level of biosecurity against ASF on most pig farms and a realistic perception of their own biosecurity by the farmers. Current knowledge transfer and information should focus on building upon the farmers' own motivation and expertise and supporting them to put existing knowledge into practice.

Indexed as

African swine feverBiosecurityBiosecurity evaluationKnowledge transferPig farmsQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID38468332
PMCPMC10926670

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.