ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Evaluating biosecure entry and exit protocols and education methods in a mock livestock facility.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Teaching biosecure protocols to farm workers and visitors is essential to maintaining healthy herds and flocks in animal agriculture. Our study objective was to evaluate the effects of protocols with varying steps, education methods, and short and mid-term retention on the number of errors and time to complete entry and exit processes in a mock livestock facility. Methods: University participants were recruited to learn and demonstrate biosecure protocols. Three simulated farm entryways were constructed with a unique set of protocols assigned (Protocol) to each entryway. Using common industry practices, Protocol 1 established three core procedures: signing a logbook, removal of outerwear and personal items, and management of a phone or other device. Protocols 2 and 3 used the same core procedures with 3 and 4 additional steps, respectively. The additional steps included changing footwear, crossing a line of separation, using hand sanitizer, donning barn-specific clothing (Protocol 3 only). Participants learned procedures via one of three educational modalities (Method): listen, read, or watch. Short-term retention was assessed as participants completed all three protocols in forward (Entry) and reverse order (Exit) starting from a randomly assigned initial protocol (Initial). When half of the participants returned after a lapse of time (>1 month; Round), they had to rely on their recall of the procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to model entry and exit time (Time), and a Poisson regression was used to model the entry and exit errors (Errors) committed. Results: Analysis showed education Method did not influence Errors or Time during Entry or Exit. Participants made 1.37 times more Entry Errors (
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.