Using a participatory qualitative risk assessment to estimate the risk of introduction and spread of transboundary animal diseases in scarce‐data environments

Abstract

This article presents a participative and iterative qualitative risk assessment framework that can be used to evaluate the spatial variation of the risk of infectious animal disease introduction and spread on a national scale. The framework was developed through regional training action workshops and field activities. The active involvement of national animal health services enabled the identification, collection and hierarchization of risk factors. Quantitative data were collected in the field, and expert knowledge was integrated to adjust the available data at regional level. Experts categorized and combined the risk factors into ordinal levels of risk per epidemiological unit to ease implementation of risk-based surveillance in the field. The framework was used to perform a qualitative assessment of the risk of introduction and spread of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Tunisia as part of a series of workshops held between 2015 and 2018. The experts in attendance combined risk factors such as epidemiological status, transboundary movements, proximity to the borders and accessibility to assess the risk of FMD outbreaks in Tunisia. Out of the 2,075 Tunisian imadas, 23 were at a very high risk of FMD introduction, mainly at the borders; and 59 were at a very high risk of FMD spread. To validate the model, the results were compared to the FMD outbreaks notified by Tunisia during the 2014 FMD epizootic.Using a spatial Poisson model, a significant alignment between the very high and high-risk categories of spread and the occurrence of FMD outbreaks was shown.The relative risk of FMD occurrence was thus 3.2 higher for imadas in the very high and high spread risk categories than for imadas in the low and negligible spread risk categories. Our results show that the qualitative risk assessment framework can be | 1967 SQUARZONI-DIAW et Al.

Risk based serological survey of Rift Valley fever in Tunisia (2017–2018)

“…Our study is the first investigation of RVFV circulation in Tunisia using RBS methodology. Samples were selected based on the risk of exposure to RVF including the risk of introduction and risk of spread of RVF (animal density, vector abundance, accessibility of imadas and movements of small ruminants at national level) [29]. The RBS approach was used in this study improve surveillance of RVF in Tunisia.…”

“…A risk-based survey targeting small ruminants and camels in the high and very-high risk areas was conducted in winter, i.e., between November 24, 2017 and January 30, 2018. The study area was represented by 23 randomly sampled imadas out of 841 imadas classified as high and very-high risk of exposure to RVF using a qualitative risk assessment (QRA) method [29]. The survey was limited to the two strata (very-high and high risk) for financial reasons.…”

“…Risk factors with presence/absence data were categorized in only two classes. Next, all risk factors were combined spatially using predefined Boolean combinations as described in the qualitative risk assessment method [29]. As a result, 204 and 637 imadas were qualified as respectively, high, and very-high risk areas out of a total of 2,075 imadas (Figure 1).…”

Self-Reporting of Risk Pathways and Parameter Values for Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Slaughter Cattle from Alternative Production Systems by Kenyan and Ugandan Veterinarians

“…There is a history in animal and public health fields of using participatory methods to overcome data scarcity challenges for epidemiological surveillance, research, and outreach [17,18]. A participatory approach to risk assessment has been developed and implemented for many studies of food safety in African markets and value chains [16,19,20] and more recently to qualitatively assess the risk of disease introduction and spread [21]. Efforts to marry value chain analysis with risk assessment have also attempted to connect participant knowledge of value chain dynamics with the assessment and management of risks related to animal and public health [22][23][24].…”

One Coin, Two Sides: Eliciting Expert Knowledge From Training Participants in a Capacity-Building Program for Veterinary Professionals

“…When accounting for the total number of articles in each Web of Science category, the same search string occurred 10 times more frequently within Environmental Sciences (1,232/1,489,989) and 12 times more frequently for Ecology (599/591,636). The purposes of expert knowledge in veterinary publications include estimation of parameter values (7,8), ranking of risk factors or criteria (9)(10)(11), enhancing or interpreting available data (12)(13)(14), or developing an instrument for use by practitioners (15,16). Many applications are in data-scarce environments, but there are also cases where expertise is used to make sense of or add rigor to abundant or heterogeneous data sources (14,17).…”