ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
"Not a problem because we drench for it": the management of liver fluke on sheep farms.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: Between October 2023 and October 2024, semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with farmers from 16 sheep farms across Wales, U.K. purposively recruited through farmer networks and social media. Interviews (mean length 52 min) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results: Despite heterogeneous farm types, farmers described fasciolosis as a "high stakes, low certainty" problem characterised by diagnostic ambiguity, limited confidence in test results, and difficulty distinguishing fluke impacts from other causes of ill-thrift. This uncertainty promoted risk-averse practises, with flukicide use functioning as "treatment as agency" and as habitual "insurance", often substituting for diagnostics due to cost, logistics, and turnaround time. Concerns about TCBZ resistance added further complexity but tended to influence behaviour after perceived treatment failure. A third theme, "making it fit", highlighted how control strategies were shaped by farm-specific geography, labour constraints, economics, and variable access to trusted veterinary support, limiting uptake of non-chemical measures and targeted treatment. Conclusion: Sheep farmers manage fasciolosis through pragmatic, risk-averse reliance on flukicides in the face of perceived diagnostic and advisory limitations. Interventions that improve practical access to reliable diagnostics, farm-specific risk profiling, and trusted, implementable guidance may reduce prophylactic treatment and support greater integration of non-chemical control, helping to mitigate flukicide resistance and improve sustainable fasciolosis management.
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.