Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot.
Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.05.009
复制
发表时间：
2017-04-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Green L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Kane H;Ferguson E;Kaler J;Green L
人们有兴趣了解农民的行为如何影响他们对牲畜的管理。我们扩展了计划行为的理论与农民的态度，信仰，情感和个性，以调查这些是如何与牲畜疾病的管理，例如羊的蹄（FR）。2013年5月，向英格兰的4000名养羊户发送了一份为期一年的回顾性问卷，要求提供有关跛行患病率、蹄病管理、农场/羊群描述符和农民导向主题的数据：治疗蹄病的障碍、蹄病的意见和知识、与其他人和个性的关系。主成分分析（PCA），使复合变量的解释变量和潜在类（LC）分析，用于分组农民，根据9个管理的FR。LC和复合变量之间的关联进行了调查，使用多项逻辑回归。负二项回归被用来调查跛脚羊的比例和复合和个性变量之间的关联。有效应答率为32%，97%的农民报告有跛行羊;跛行的几何平均患病率（GMPL）为3.7%（95%CI 3.51%-3.86%）。参与者分为三个潜在类别; LC 1（最佳实践-在羊跛行3天内治疗FR;使用注射和局部抗生素;避免修剪脚），11%的农民），LC 2（行动缓慢，57%）和LC 3（行动缓慢，延迟淘汰，32%），GMPL分别为2.95%，3.60%和4.10%。报告生产周期是用FR治疗绵羊的障碍的农民更有可能处于LC 2（RRR 1.36）而不是LC 1。对FR的负面情绪与LC 2（RRR 1.39）比LC 1更高的风险相关。预防FR传播的知识与LC 2（RRR 0.46）或LC 3（RRR 0.34）的风险低于LC 1相关。与LC 1相比，了解FR传播与LC 3（RRR 0.64）的风险较低相关。跛行风险增加与生产周期相关，生产周期是FR治疗绵羊的障碍（IRR 1.13），对FR的负面情绪（IRR 1.13）和对FR的绝望感（IRR 1.20）。尽责性（IRR 0.95）和理解主动控制跛行的重要性（IRR 0.76）与跛行风险降低相关。我们的结论是，情绪和个性与农民管理FR和跛行患病率的差异。进一步了解个性和情绪如何影响行为变化是增加新信息吸收的关键。
There is interest in understanding how farmers’ behaviour influences their management of livestock. We extend the theory of planned behaviour with farmers attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality to investigate how these are associated with management of livestock disease using the example of footrot (FR) in sheep. In May 2013 a one-year retrospective questionnaire was sent to 4000 sheep farmers in England, requesting data on lameness prevalence, management of footrot, farm/flock descriptors, and farmer-orientated themes: barriers to treating footrot, opinions and knowledge of footrot, relating to other people and personality. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to make composite variables from explanatory variables and latent class (LC) analysis was used to subgroup farmers, based on nine managements of FR. Associations between LC and composite variables were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Negative binomial regression was used to investigate associations between the proportion of lame sheep and composite and personality variables. The useable response rate was 32% and 97% of farmers reported having lame sheep; the geometric mean prevalence of lameness (GMPL) was 3.7% (95% CI 3.51%–3.86%). Participants grouped into three latent classes; LC1 (best practice—treat FR within 3 days of sheep becoming lame; use injectable and topical antibiotics; avoid foot trimming), 11% farmers), LC2 (slow to act, 57%) and LC3 (slow to act, delayed culling, 32%), with GMPL 2.95%, 3.60% and 4.10% respectively. Farmers who reported the production cycle as a barrier to treating sheep with FR were more likely to be in LC2 (RRR 1.36) than LC1. Negative emotions towards FR were associated with higher risk of being in LC2 (RRR 1.39) than LC1. Knowledge of preventing FR spread was associated with a lower risk of being in LC2 (RRR 0.46) or LC3 (RRR 0.34) than LC1. Knowledge about FR transmission was associated with a lower risk of being in LC3 (RRR 0.64) than LC1. An increased risk of lameness was associated with the production cycle being a barrier to treating sheep with FR (IRR 1.13), negative emotions towards FR (IRR 1.13) and feelings of hopelessness towards FR (IRR 1.20). Conscientiousness (IRR 0.95) and understanding the importance of active control of lameness (IRR 0.76) were associated with reduced risk of lameness. We conclude that emotions and personality are associated with differences in farmer management of FR and prevalence of lameness. Further understanding how personality and emotions influence change in behaviour is key to increasing uptake of new information.