Decision making for animal health and welfare: integrating risk-benefit analysis with prospect theory

Approaches for disease prioritization and decision-making in animal health, 2000-2021: a structured scoping review

This scoping review identifies and describes the methods used to prioritize diseases for resource allocation across disease control, surveillance, and research and the methods used generally in decision-making on animal health policy. Three electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, and CAB Abstracts) were searched for articles from 2000 to 2021. Searches identified 6, 395 articles after de-duplication, with an additional 64 articles added manually. A total of 6, 460 articles were imported to online document review management software (sysrev.com) for screening. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 532 articles passed the first screening, and after a second round of screening, 336 articles were recommended for full review. A total of 40 articles were removed after data extraction. Another 11 articles were added, having been obtained from cross-citations of already identified articles, providing a total of 307 articles to be considered in the scoping review. The results show that the main methods used for disease prioritization were based on economic analysis, multi-criteria evaluation, risk assessment, simple ranking, spatial risk mapping, and simulation modeling. Disease prioritization was performed to aid in decision-making related to various categories: (1) disease control, prevention, or eradication strategies, (2) general organizational strategy, (3) identification of high-risk areas or populations, (4) assessment of risk of disease introduction or occurrence, (5) disease surveillance, and (6) research priority setting. Of the articles included in data extraction, 50.5% had a national focus, 12.3% were local, 11.9% were regional, 6.5% were sub-national, and 3.9% were global. In 15.2% of the articles, the geographic focus was not specified. The scoping review revealed the lack of comprehensive, integrated, and mutually compatible approaches to disease prioritization and decision support tools for animal health. We recommend that future studies should focus on creating comprehensive and harmonized frameworks describing methods for disease prioritization and decision-making tools in animal health.

Reward Behavior Disengagement, a Neuroeconomic Model-Based Objective Measure of Reward Pathology in Depression: Findings from the EMBARC Trial

The probabilistic reward task (PRT) has identified reward learning impairments in those with major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as anhedonia-specific reward learning impairments. However, attempts to validate the anhedonia-specific impairments have produced inconsistent findings. Thus, we seek to determine whether the Reward Behavior Disengagement (RBD), our proposed economic augmentation of PRT, differs between MDD participants and controls, and whether there is a level at which RBD is high enough for depressed participants to be considered objectively disengaged. Data were gathered as part of the Establishing Moderators and Biosignatures of Antidepressant Response in Clinical Care (EMBARC) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of antidepressant response. Participants included 195 individuals with moderate to severe MDD (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR) score ≥ 15), not in treatment for depression, and with complete PRT data. Healthy controls (n = 40) had no history of psychiatric illness, a QIDS-SR score < 8, and complete PRT data. Participants with MDD were treated with sertraline or placebo for 8 weeks (stage I of the EMBARC trial). RBD was applied to PRT data using discriminant analysis, and classified MDD participants as reward task engaged (n = 137) or reward task disengaged (n = 58), relative to controls. Reward task engaged/disengaged groups were compared on sociodemographic features, reward-behavior, and sertraline/placebo response (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores). Reward task disengaged MDD participants responded only to sertraline, whereas those who were reward task engaged responded to sertraline and placebo (F(1293) = 4.33, p = 0.038). Reward task engaged/disengaged groups did not differ otherwise. RBD was predictive of reward impairment in depressed patients and may have clinical utility in identifying patients who will benefit from antidepressants.

Using Risk–Benefit Analysis to Control Salmonella in Chicken Meat

We have created a risk–benefit analysis (RBA) model to assist in food safety decision-making by analyzing Salmonella control in Brazilian chicken meat. First, we described the issues in a risk profile and used a 5×5 matrix to rank the risks associated with Salmonella. We then classified the magnitude of benefits and costs of control measures using another matrix. Finally, we verified the beneficial effects of recommended control measures using Quantitative Microbiological Risk Assessment (QMRA). The RBA classified Salmonella contamination as risk 6, indicating that control measures should be taken in the short and medium terms. It also recommended the adoption of biosecurity measures on farms to reduce the prevalence of Salmonella in birds, better control of carcass washings and chiller tank management, and information placement on packages and campaigns to raise the awareness of the population about the need to control Salmonella contamination before consumption. On the other hand, it did not recommend better controls at scalding and defeathering. QMRA confirmed the beneficial effects of the recommended control measures. For example, as Salmonella prevalence in poultry increased from 4.04 per cent to 50 per cent, the risk of infection per serving also increased from 0.0080 to 0.071. Although better controls in washings and chiller tank management did not affect the risk of infection, it reduced Salmonella counts on carcasses. We assume that the presence of Salmonella on carcasses was due to improper thermal processing or cross-contamination, which increased the risk from 0.0080 to 0.015962. The RBA demonstrated the logic involved in the adoption of control measures, and this can be helpful in the risk management of food safety issues.

Exploring the relationship between mastitis risk perceptions and farmers' readiness to engage in milk recording

The need to move towards Selective Dry Cow Therapy (SDCT) has become increasingly pertinent as a means to reduce the use of antibiotics in the dairy sector. With the EU 2022 ban on prophylactic antibiotics at drying off, practices on some farms will need to drastically change. In Ireland, one particular challenge to the sector-wide transition to SDCT is the lack of widespread uptake of milk recording across dairy farms, a decision support tool which can support mastitis control and help identify cows to select for SDCT. The current study examined readiness to engage in milk recording amongst Irish dairy farmers, and specifically investigated the role of mastitis risk perceptions in shaping farmers' readiness. The study explores the multifaceted nature of risk perception as a construct shaping farmers' attitudes. An online survey was carried out with 197 Irish dairy farmers exploring their attitudes towards mastitis and milk recording. A cluster analysis classified farmers according to their mastitis risk perceptions, with 3 segments identified with differing risk perception profiles. Elevated mastitis risk perceptions were linked to an increased readiness to milk record. However, this relationship was not universal across all farmers. One segment of farmers in the current study maintain low mastitis risk perceptions and remain unmotivated to engage in milk recording. The study concludes that targeted risk communication strategies related to mastitis and milk recording are needed to encourage the move towards SDCT and reduced AMR. Results suggest that the types of risk communication strategies - message framing and two-way risk communication - should reflect farmers' types of mastitis risk perceptions to have the most effective impact on milk recording uptake.

Variable Cognition in ABM Decision-Making: An Application to Livestock Vaccine Choice

Modeling realistic human decision-making is an important feature of good policy design processes. The use of an agent-based modeling framework allows for quantitative human decision-models that assume fully rational agents. This research introduces a dynamic human decision-making sub-model. The parameterisation of human memory and "rationality" in a decision-making model represents an important extension of decision-making in ABMs. A data driven model of herd movement within a dynamic natural environment is the context for evaluating the cognitive decision-making model. The natural and human environments are linked via memory and rationality that affect herdsmen decision-making to vaccinate cattle using a once-for-life vaccine (Rift Valley fever) and an annual booster vaccine (Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia). The simulation model uses environmental data from Samburu county, Kenya from 2004 to 2015. The cognitive parameters of memory and "rationality" are shown to successfully differentiate between vaccination decisions that are characterized by annual and once-for-life choices. The preliminary specifications and findings from the dynamic cognition-pastoralist agent-based model (PastoralScape) indicate that the model offers much to livestock vaccination modeling among small-scale herders.

Will an incentive-compatible indemnity policy please stand up? Livestock producer willingness to self-protect

This study evaluates the role of private market signals and conditional indemnity policies in livestock producer willingness to self-protect against disease and invest more in biosecurity. Our focus on Tier 1 swine diseases and U.S. hog producer decision-making is timely and informative for a multitude of current disease discussions. We find biosecurity effort adjusts to economic incentives in private, livestock markets and public, indemnity policies.

How Much Credence Does It Take? Evidence on the Trade-Off between Country-Of-Origin Information and Credence Attributes for Beef from a Choice Experiment in Sweden

Based on a discrete choice experiment with 336 consumers, this study investigated whether the consumer propensity to choose a simplified European Union (EU) vs. non-EU denomination of origin for beef, instead of a specific country-of-origin (COO) denomination, depends upon the amount and type of credence information provided to the individual. The likelihood of choosing the EU/non-EU denomination of origin depended on the total number of other labelling credence attributes provided and also on the type of detailed credence attributes present in the choice. The presence of cues relating to animal welfare and far-reaching traceability had the highest likelihood of influencing the choice of the EU/non-EU denomination of origin. The compensatory qualities of each credence attribute in relation to the EU/non-EU origin denomination thus differed.

Livestock keepers' reasons for doing and not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do

Farmers are rational. They do what makes sense to them in the particular circumstances of their farm, family and business. The challenge for those who want to influence farmers' behaviour - policy makers, veterinarians, public health professionals - is to understand their rationality, to gain some insight into how they see the world and the various options it offers to them. This study explores some of the reasons that emerge from recent research on why their decisions are not always the ones that other people expect or want them to take. These include differences in values, motivations, social influences and behavioural types. Also relevant is how farmers view the sources from which advice and information are seen to come: some advice is rejected simply because a farmer does not see the person or organization as a trustworthy source. It is now widely accepted that farmers' motivations for continuing what they are doing, and for changing what they are doing, are not simply economic or financial. Their decisions cannot be predicted on the basis of simplistic notions of 'economic rationality'. While costs and returns are clearly important in weighing up choices (and farm management economics has given us several useful tools and methodologies for analysing these), farmers operate within a social context that both constrains and facilitates their behavioural choices. They have complex sets of core values, just like anyone else, which will make some choices more attractive than others that are potentially more rewarding financially. It is therefore appropriate to look to the wider family of social sciences beyond economics, including sociology, psychology and social psychology, to help us understand more fully the factors that inform and influence farm-level decisions. And this improved understanding should make us better at designing policy and advisory interventions that will benefit farmers and society.