Comparative assessment of two participatory approach methods for selecting pig health indicators: A proof-of-concept on respiratory health

Over recent years, antimicrobial use (AMU) in pig farming has substantially declined across Europe, including France, following regulatory measures and sector-wide initiatives. Maintaining these reductions while preserving pig health and welfare remains a major challenge. Stakeholders have therefore highlighted the need for a structured on-farm health monitoring protocol to support judicious AMU. However, no comprehensive set of pig health indicators has yet been systematically assessed and selected for this purpose. Expert elicitation offers a promising approach to address this gap. This study aimed to develop and compare two participatory methods for mobilizing expert knowledge to identify and characterize relevant pig health indicators while making efficient use of experts' time. Both methods followed the same six-step framework but differed in their implementation. In each method, experts assessed indicators according to four attributes (feasibility, reliability, specificity, and sensitivity) and subsequently discussed the results to reach agreement on a final set of relevant indicators. Porcine respiratory health was used as a proof-of-concept to compare the performance and outputs of the two methods and select the most appropriate one. Both methods enabled experts to reach agreement and generated well-characterized indicators, supported by experts' rationales. Although Method B required greater expert involvement, it produced a more comprehensive set of 52 relevant respiratory health indicators and allowed greater flexibility in how experts allocated their time throughout the process. This participatory approach method provides a practical framework that encourages expert involvement and allows the selection and characterization of relevant pig health indicators. The method will be extended to other pig health systems beyond respiratory health.