loading page

Assessing the use of animal health platforms: user’s needs, preferences and constraints
  • +4
  • Juana Bianchini,
  • Xavier Simons,
  • Christel Faes,
  • Gaëlle Nicolas,
  • Aline Vilain,
  • Guy Hendrickx,
  • Claude Saegerman
Juana Bianchini
University of Liège
Author Profile
Xavier Simons
Sciensano
Author Profile
Christel Faes
Hasselt University
Author Profile
Gaëlle Nicolas
Avia-GIS NV
Author Profile
Aline Vilain
Sciensano
Author Profile
Guy Hendrickx
Avia-GIS NV
Author Profile
Claude Saegerman
Universtiy of Liege
Author Profile

Peer review status:UNDER REVIEW

29 Jun 2020Submitted to Transboundary and Emerging Diseases
01 Jul 2020Assigned to Editor
01 Jul 2020Submission Checks Completed
10 Jul 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned

Abstract

Animal health information systems or risk analysis tools are indispensable not only for animal health surveillance, but also to observe the evolution and risk of disease incursion into a disease-free area. Given their essential function in animal disease prevention, different international and national organizations have created their own aforementioned systems/tools. Moreover, with the increase of technology and data storage, they have become more accessible and widely used by professionals in animal and human health sciences. This study aimed to establish their preferences, needs and constraints in respect of these tools. An online survey was conducted and answered by 213 respondents from 132 countries. The respondents were animal or public health professionals in different employment sectors (mostly in government, research and university institutions) and various fields of competency (highest for animal and public health). The majority of respondents used the animal health information systems frequently and on a weekly basis, with prevention measures of diseases being regarded as the most useful information. Descriptive epidemiology is more used/needed than analytical epidemiology. Risk analysis was performed by the majority of the respondents (70%), using a qualitative approach more than a quantitative or semi-qualitative. The primary objectives was to produce risk assessment and preparedness in areas involving origin and spread of animal diseases. The features most sought after in risk assessment tools were pathways of introduction and spread assessment. The level of satisfaction was higher for the platform which is most used by the respondents. Thus, the platform choice is most likely influenced by its efficiency and functionality. Overall, these results could be taken into consideration when improving an already available platform, or when creating a new efficient tool.