Quantifying the beliefs of key players in the UK sheep industry on the efficacy of two treatments for footrot.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that sheep with footrot treated with parenteral and topical antibiotics without foot trimming (treatment A), cure faster than sheep treated with foot trimming and topical antibiotics (treatment B). We investigated how key players in the UK sheep industry recommended treating footrot, and tested whether reviewing the evidence surrounding treatment of footrot changed their beliefs. Eight key players attended a workshop to investigate their current practices, and their perceived efficacy of treatments, using probabilistic elicitation. At the start of the study, all participants recommended use of antibiotic injection but only four recommended not foot trimming feet with footrot. Initial beliefs in the difference in cure rate within five days of treatment ranged from 30 to 97% in favour of treatment A (true difference 60%); this heterogeneity reduced after reviewing the evidence. Participants who believed the cure rate differed by >60% over-estimated the cure rate of treatment A whilst participants who believed the difference was <60% over-estimated the efficacy of treatment B. During discussions, participants stated that parenteral antibiotics had always been recommended as a treatment for footrot but that the new research clarified when to use them. In contrast, it was highly novel to hear that foot trimming was detrimental to recovery, and key players and farmers are taking longer to accept this evidence. Three months after the workshop, two participants stated that they now placed greater emphasis on rapid individual antibiotic treatment of lame sheep and one was no longer recommending trimming feet.

A comparison of the efficacy of three intervention trial types: postal, group, and one-to-one facilitation, prior management and the impact of message framing and repeat messages on the flock prevalence of lameness in sheep.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three knowledge-transfer intervention trial types (postal, group, one-to-one) to promote best practice to treat sheep with footrot. Further aims were to investigate whether farmer behaviour (i.e. management of lameness) before the trial was associated with uptake of best practice and whether the benefits of best practice framed positively or negatively influenced change in behaviour. The intervention was a message developed from evidence and expert opinion. It was entitled "Six steps to sound sheep" and promoted (1) catch sheep within three days of becoming lame, (2) inspect feet without foot trimming, (3) correctly diagnose the cause, (4) treat sheep lame with footrot or interdigital dermatitis with antibiotic injection and spray without foot trimming, (5) record the identity of treated sheep, (6) cull repeatedly lame sheep. In 2013, 4000 randomly-selected English sheep farmers were sent a questionnaire, those who responded were recruited to the postal (1081 farmers) or one-to-one intervention (32 farmers) trials. A random sample of 400 farmers were invited to join the group trial; 78 farmers participated. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to all participants in summer 2014. There were 72%, 65% and 91% useable responses for the postal, group and one-to-one trials respectively. In both 2013 and 2014, the prevalence of lameness was lower in flocks managed by LC1 farmers than LC2 and LC3 farmers. Between 2013 and 2014, the reduction in geometric mean (95% CI) period prevalence of lameness, proportional between flock reduction in lameness and within flock reduction in lameness was greatest in the one-to-one (7.6% (7.1-8.2%) to 4.3% (3.6-5.0%), 35%, 72%) followed by the group (4.5% (3.9-5.0%) to 3.1% (2.4-3.7%), 27%, 55%) and then the postal trial (from 3.5% (3.3-3.7%) to 3.2% (3.1-3.4%), 21%, 43%). There was a marginally greater reduction in lameness in farmers using most of Six steps but slow to treat lame sheep pre-trial than those not using Six steps at all. There was no significant effect of message framing. The greatest behavioural change was a reduction in therapeutic and routine foot trimming and the greatest attitude change was an increase in negative attitudes towards foot trimming. We conclude that all three intervention trial approaches were effective to promote best practice to treat sheep with footrot with one-to-one facilitation more effective than group and postal intervention trials. Results suggest that farmers' behaviour change was greater among those practising aspects of the intervention message before the trial began than those not practising any aspect.

Associations between sheep farmer attitudes, beliefs, emotions and personality, and their barriers to uptake of best practice: The example of footrot.

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 3days 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.