Prioritization, resource allocation and utilization of decision support tools in animal health: Results of qualitative interviews with experts

A follow up to an online questionnaire survey (in a kind of a sequential study design), qualitative assessment was made on the views of selected animal health experts on disease prioritization methods, resource allocation and use of decision-support tools. This was done through in-depth interviews with experts working for national or international organizations and sectors. A semi-structured question guide was formulated based on the information generated in the online questionnaire and a systematic content analysis of animal and human health manuals for disease prioritization and resource allocation. In-depth, one-on-one, online interviews on the process of disease prioritization, animal health decision-making, types of prioritization tools and aspects of improvements in the tools were conducted during March and April 2022 with 20 expert informants. Prioritization approaches reported by experts were either single criterion-based or multiple criteria-based. Experts appreciated the single-criterion-based approach (quantitative) for its objectivity in contrast to multicriteria prioritization approaches which were criticized for their subjectivity. Interviews with the experts revealed a perceived lack of quality and reliable data to inform disease prioritization, especially in smallholder livestock production systems. It was found that outputs of disease prioritization exercises do not generally directly influence resource allocation in animal health and highlighted the paucity of funding for animal health compared to other agricultural sectors. The experts considered that the available decision-support tools in animal health need improvement in terms of data visualization for interpretation, management decision making and advocacy. Further recommendations include minimizing subjective biases by increasing the availability and quality of data and improving the translation of disease prioritization outputs into actions and the resources to deliver those actions. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Published
2024-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2024.106333
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.57

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prioritization, resource allocation and utilization of decision support tools in animal health: Results of qualitative interviews with experts

Delia Grace, Jonathan Rushton, Théodore Knight-Jones, Kebede Amenu et al.
1 citations
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
0.57
article

Prioritization, resource allocation and utilization of decision support tools in animal health: Results of qualitative interviews with experts

Delia Grace, Jonathan Rushton, Théodore Knight-Jones, Kebede Amenu, C.J. Daborn, Benjamin Huntington
article en
1 citations

Abstract

A follow up to an online questionnaire survey (in a kind of a sequential study design), qualitative assessment was made on the views of selected animal health experts on disease prioritization methods, resource allocation and use of decision-support tools. This was done through in-depth interviews with experts working for national or international organizations and sectors. A semi-structured question guide was formulated based on the information generated in the online questionnaire and a systematic content analysis of animal and human health manuals for disease prioritization and resource allocation. In-depth, one-on-one, online interviews on the process of disease prioritization, animal health decision-making, types of prioritization tools and aspects of improvements in the tools were conducted during March and April 2022 with 20 expert informants. Prioritization approaches reported by experts were either single criterion-based or multiple criteria-based. Experts appreciated the single-criterion-based approach (quantitative) for its objectivity in contrast to multicriteria prioritization approaches which were criticized for their subjectivity. Interviews with the experts revealed a perceived lack of quality and reliable data to inform disease prioritization, especially in smallholder livestock production systems. It was found that outputs of disease prioritization exercises do not generally directly influence resource allocation in animal health and highlighted the paucity of funding for animal health compared to other agricultural sectors. The experts considered that the available decision-support tools in animal health need improvement in terms of data visualization for interpretation, management decision making and advocacy. Further recommendations include minimizing subjective biases by increasing the availability and quality of data and improving the translation of disease prioritization outputs into actions and the resources to deliver those actions. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Preventive Veterinary MedicineVol. 233
University of Liverpool (GB), Oldham Council (GB), Addis Ababa University (ET), International Livestock Research Institute (KE)
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
0.57
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.