Effects of a participatory approach, with systematic impact matrix analysis in herd health planning in organic dairy cattle herds

Dairy herd health management activities in relation to training of veterinarians in motivational interviewing

Communication has been identified as one constraint for cattle veterinarians to act as proactive health consultants. Motivational Interviewing (MI), an evidence-based client-centered communication methodology, may therefore be a useful tool in veterinary herd health management (VHHM). The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate associations between training in MI and different measures of performance in VHHM. MI skills of 36 Swedish cattle veterinarians randomly assigned to two groups - MI veterinarians (n = 18) who had received six-months training in MI and control veterinarians (n = 18) who were not trained - were assessed using the MI Treatment Integrity coding system. Skills were categorized as untrained, trained_poor, trained_near moderate and trained_moderate. Veterinarians each visited two to six cattle farms for VHHM consultations and revisited the same farms three to six months later to document implementation of recommendations. A gamma model and logistic or ordered logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between MI training and performance measured as: a) proportion of consultations resulting in written herd health plans, b) proportion of recommended measures fully or partially implemented, c) Likert scores of different estimates of client satisfaction and d) total time during 6 months allocated to VHHM visits on cattle farms. We found no evidence of any significant effects of MI training on the eight performance variables analyzed. However, a pattern of numerically higher values (better performance) in trained veterinarians with poor or moderate MI skills than in untrained veterinarians was observed in most variables. Clients were highly satisfied with veterinarians' attitude, competence and time efficiency. Farms implemented a median of 66.7% (interquartile range: 50-100) of the measures partially or fully. Veterinarians allocated little time to VHHM visits (median: 2.2; interquartile range: 0.65-4.1 h per week of full-time work within cattle). Veterinarians with moderate skills spent 2.14 times more time on VHHM visits than untrained veterinarians, but the confidence interval was wide (0.88-5.21). The pattern of numerically higher values in trained veterinarians supported findings from other studies in the same project indicating a positive effect of MI training on VHHM. Our observations suggest a considerable potential to increase veterinarians' engagement in VHHM.

Do animal health models meet the needs of organic and conventional dairy farmers in Spain and the UK on disease prevention?

Modelling plays an important role in assessing disease risks and the efficacy of preventative actions. However, the extent to which existing models meet the needs of different groups of dairy farmers around disease prevention is unclear. A questionnaire gathered information on disease prevention actions undertaken by organic and conventional dairy farmers in Spain and the UK, and on their information preferences and needs in relation to such actions. A systematic review of animal health modelling articles was undertaken to compare the expressed needs of dairy farmers for information on disease prevention, with the focus and outputs of existing models. Farmer groups differed in needs when planning disease prevention interventions. Most farmers sourced animal health information from veterinarians. Farmers preferred to use practical experience to judge the efficacy of change. To fulfil the expressed needs of dairy farmers, models need to address specific farming contexts and non-economic impacts of change.

A Q study: exploring the purpose of transdisciplinary dairy advisory services in Denmark

Background

Structural changes in dairy farming increase farm complexity, thereby inducing a need to combine herd health management, technological solutions, legislation, and human relations among farmers, farm workers, and advisors. This complex situation may require ‘transdisciplinary advisory service’, i.e., a highly integrated network of both non-academic and different academic disciplines. While working in these networks, advisors need to offer specialized knowledge from their own field, interact in a dynamic relationship between different types of professions and facilitate complex processes. The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify and describe different advisor and farmer styles based on their reasons to engage in transdisciplinary advisory services at farm-level, (2) to identify any possible conflicting perspectives between advisors and farmers’ demand, and (3) to discuss these styles and conflicts in the context and future of advisory services for dairy herd health and production management.

Results

Using Q methodology, we explored the purpose of transdisciplinary advisory service on dairy farms. The results were derived from correlations between 40 statements for 25 advisors and 33 statements for nine farmers. We identified three similar styles among advisors and farmers, characterized as: (1) the teamwork and knowledge-focused style, (2) the production and economy-focused style, and (3) the economy and strategy-focused style. These styles included reflections on financial aspects, production, knowledge-exchange and the teamwork process itself. In addition, different emphasis on animal welfare, farm strategy and follow-up procedures between the styles became evident.

Conclusions

This Q-study suggests three comparable styles between advisors and farmers. The main differences between the styles related to the teamwork process and purpose, follow-up process, financial aspects, farm strategy, and operational production objectives. Therefore, styles and expectations should be explored and discussed to create a mutual understanding within a farmer-advisor(s)-team, and to clarify the farmer’s needs and demands, and how the advisors can best meet these expectations. This study illustrates the importance of exploring different advisor and farmer styles to get a mutual understanding of the purpose of the transdisciplinary collaboration.

A participatory, farmer-led approach to changing practices around antimicrobial use on UK farms

Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research, with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish stable schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated farmer action groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 and 2018, and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices. Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 yr of the study, with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest-priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset). Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks. Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest-priority critically important antibiotics, where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices.

Training in motivational interviewing improves cattle veterinarians' communication skills for herd health management

BACKGROUND

Communication skills to promote changes in management routines are especially important in veterinary herd health management (VHHM). Motivational interviewing (MI) is a communication methodology shown to be effective in stimulating client behaviour change. This study aimed to evaluate a 6-month MI-training programme for veterinarians.

METHODS

Thirty-eight cattle veterinarians gathered in groups of four to eight at six workshops separated by 3-4 weeks, during which they read literature and practised their skills. MI skills were evaluated before and after training using audio recordings of role-play conversations with professional actors. Recordings were coded using the MI Treatment Integrity Code (MITI) V.4.2.1. The effect of training was evaluated by 16 regression models. Participants filled in questionnaires about their experiences.

RESULTS

All participants improved their MI skills after training in at least one parameter and significant improvements were found in all but 3 of the 16 statistically evaluated MITI variables. The mean (25th-75th percentiles) ratings of the veterinarians' perceived relevance of MI skills in their work was 4.9 (4.0-6.0) and of their satisfaction with the programme was 5.1 (5.0-6.0) on a 6-point Likert scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Results show that MI training was perceived to be useful and relevant and successfully improved veterinarians' communication skills in VHHM.

Improving Animal Health on Organic Dairy Farms: Stakeholder Views on Policy Options

Although ensuring good animal health is a stated aim of organic livestock farming and an important reason why consumers purchase organic products, the health states actually achieved are comparable to those in conventional farming. Unfortunately, there have been no studies to date that have assessed stakeholder views on different policy options for improving animal health on organic dairy farms. To address this deficit, stakeholder consultations were conducted in four European countries, involving 39 supply-chain stakeholders (farmers, advisors, veterinarians, inspectors, processors, and retailers). Stakeholders were encouraged to discuss different ways, including policy change, of improving organic health states. Acknowledging the need for further health improvements in organic dairy herds, stakeholders generally favoured establishing outcome-oriented animal health requirements as a way of achieving this. However, as a result of differing priorities for animal health improvement, there was disagreement on questions such as: who should be responsible for assessing animal health status on organic farms; and how to define and implement minimum health requirements. The results of the study suggest that future research must fully explore the opportunities and risks of different policy options and also suggest ways to overcome the divergence of stakeholders’ interests in public debates.

Trust, feasibility, and priorities influence Swedish dairy farmers' adherence and nonadherence to veterinary advice

The problem of nonadherence to advice is recognized in several professional relationships, including the veterinarian-client relationship. A better understanding of farmer perspectives may help to improve efficiency in veterinary herd health management. This study aimed to qualitatively and quantitatively describe farmers' reasons for adherence and nonadherence with veterinary recommendations regarding preventive herd health measures. We carried out structured telephone interviews about implementation of preventive measures with owners or staff of 163 dairy farms and 6 beef farms. The farms had received an advisory visit by their veterinarian (n = 36), who had documented the preventive measures they had recommended. The interviewer noted verbatim responses to reasons for implementing preventive measures fully, partially, or not at all, and we analyzed these responses thematically. We also conducted a quantitative analysis, in which we calculated descriptive statistics of the proportions of different categories of reasons stated by the farmers. Altogether, 726 preventive measures (range per farm 1 to 17; median 3; interquartile range 2 to 6) were documented. We identified 3 organizing themes related to adherence or nonadherence with veterinary advice: trust, feasibility, and priorities. Overall, the most commonly stated reasons related to trust (in the veterinarian, in the advisory process, or in individual preventive measures). The most common reasons not to follow the recommended advice were related to feasibility. Based on the results, we recommend that, to improve adherence to their advice, veterinarians pay increased attention to farmers' needs, priorities, goals, and motives, as well as to farmers' perceptions of the effectiveness of individual preventive measures. We also recommend that veterinarians need to increase their focus on recommending preventive measures that are practically feasible to implement on farms.