ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Trust and professional relationships drive participation in passive cattle health surveillance among Dutch farmers and veterinarians.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Active involvement of farmers and veterinarians is crucial for the effectiveness of passive surveillance. This study aimed to identify the psychosocial factors influencing farmers' and veterinarians' decisions to contact a veterinary helpdesk or the competent authorities regarding cattle health concerns in the Netherlands. We used the COM-B model: for any Behavior (B) to occur, an individual must have the Capability (C), Opportunity (O), and Motivation (M) to perform it. Two separate surveys (for farmers or veterinarians) with Likert-scale statements informed by the COM-B behavioral framework were conducted. For a hypothetical herd of 100 cows, respondents were asked to indicate the weekly mortality threshold at which they thought they would contact a veterinarian, the helpdesk, or the competent authority. In total, 85 farmers and 63 veterinarians completed the survey. Farmers reported they intended to contact their veterinarian at 2.3 cattle deaths per week. Veterinarians indicated they would contact the helpdesk at 3.5 and the competent authority at 5.6 cattle deaths per week. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the farmer responses identified four psychosocial factors: "Farmer-veterinarian relationship," "Trust in institution," "Trust in peers and other professionals" and "Confidence." Regression models were used to examine the association between these psychological factors and reported helpdesk contact and stated mortality thresholds. The first three factors indicated that relational and trust-based factors appear to be important correlates of intended reporting behavior. Despite some variation in responses about the competent authority, no major barriers to engage in passive surveillance were identified. The small sample size and potential selection bias limit the generalizability of the results. Nevertheless, trust-based, low-threshold surveillance systems may improve early detection of animal threats through timely reporting.
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.