Preference of veterinarians to select an udder health programme for milk producers.
conjoint analysis
cost
efficacy
mastitis control
Journal
Veterinary record open
ISSN: 2052-6113
Titre abrégé: Vet Rec Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101653671
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
27
09
2018
revised:
25
09
2019
accepted:
01
10
2019
entrez:
5
12
2019
pubmed:
5
12
2019
medline:
5
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This investigation was carried out to gain more insight about the preference of veterinarians on the implementation of an udder health programme (UHP) in a dairy farm. A choice experiment was designed to elicit the preferences of the participants. The study population consisted of 36 veterinarians from Argentina specialised on milk quality. The choice experiment offered several UHPs, which were combinations of some of the interventions included in the so-called five-point plan. To reduce bias among the participants, the UHPs offered were unlabelled and considered two farm contexts: one was on a pasture system and the other was on a dry-lot with pasture access system. The basic criteria (the so-called attribute) to describe veterinarians' preferences for each UHP proposed were efficacy on clinical mastitis (CM) and bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) reduction, cost and technical support. The data collected were analysed using conjoint analysis. UHP cost and UHP efficacy on BMSCC and CM had a significant influence on veterinarians' ranking decisions under both dairy production contexts. The efficacy on CM was the most important attribute to prefer a particular UHP, while technical assistance was the least important attribute considered. The attributes related to efficacy on both BMSCC and CM explained over 60 per cent of the total importance of all attributes. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first research in South America focused on studying veterinarians' preferences to suggest a UHP. The cost and efficacy attributes were the veterinarians' top priority attributes to decide the best UHP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This investigation was carried out to gain more insight about the preference of veterinarians on the implementation of an udder health programme (UHP) in a dairy farm.
METHODS
METHODS
A choice experiment was designed to elicit the preferences of the participants. The study population consisted of 36 veterinarians from Argentina specialised on milk quality. The choice experiment offered several UHPs, which were combinations of some of the interventions included in the so-called five-point plan. To reduce bias among the participants, the UHPs offered were unlabelled and considered two farm contexts: one was on a pasture system and the other was on a dry-lot with pasture access system. The basic criteria (the so-called attribute) to describe veterinarians' preferences for each UHP proposed were efficacy on clinical mastitis (CM) and bulk milk somatic cell count (BMSCC) reduction, cost and technical support. The data collected were analysed using conjoint analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
UHP cost and UHP efficacy on BMSCC and CM had a significant influence on veterinarians' ranking decisions under both dairy production contexts. The efficacy on CM was the most important attribute to prefer a particular UHP, while technical assistance was the least important attribute considered. The attributes related to efficacy on both BMSCC and CM explained over 60 per cent of the total importance of all attributes.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
To the authors' knowledge, this is the first research in South America focused on studying veterinarians' preferences to suggest a UHP. The cost and efficacy attributes were the veterinarians' top priority attributes to decide the best UHP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31798907
doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2018-000313
pii: vetreco-2018-000313
pmc: PMC6861084
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e000313Informations de copyright
© British Veterinary Association 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Br Vet J. 1990 Mar-Apr;146(2):157-64
pubmed: 2331593
J Dairy Sci. 1969 May;52(5):696-707
pubmed: 5391057
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 21;8(8):e72172
pubmed: 23991057
J Dairy Res. 2008 Feb;75(1):113-20
pubmed: 18226298
Vet Rec. 2012 Apr 28;170(17):441
pubmed: 22411767
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Mar;102(3):2724-2737
pubmed: 30612802
J Dairy Sci. 2009 Feb;92(2):599-606
pubmed: 19164670
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jul;88(7):2672-80
pubmed: 15956329
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Feb;93(2):604-12
pubmed: 20105532
Prev Vet Med. 2010 Mar 1;93(4):276-85
pubmed: 19963291
Vet Rec. 2015 Nov 7;177(18):465
pubmed: 26530434
Prev Vet Med. 2018 Feb 1;150:110-116
pubmed: 29406077
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13
pubmed: 23337210
Prev Vet Med. 2009 Dec 1;92(4):351-9
pubmed: 19781799
J Dairy Sci. 2002 Apr;85(4):992-1001
pubmed: 12018446
Prev Vet Med. 2009 Nov 15;92(3):210-23
pubmed: 19800700
J Dairy Sci. 2004 Nov;87(11):3989-99
pubmed: 15483184
Front Vet Sci. 2017 Jun 02;4:82
pubmed: 28626750
J Dairy Sci. 1999 Aug;82(8):1655-63
pubmed: 10480090
Patient. 2010 Dec 1;3(4):249-56
pubmed: 22273432
Prev Vet Med. 2015 Sep 1;121(1-2):30-40
pubmed: 26123631
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Sep;90(9):4466-77
pubmed: 17699068
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Dec;100(12):10381-10397
pubmed: 29153171
Vet J. 2002 Sep;164(2):116-28
pubmed: 12359466
N Z Vet J. 2011 Jan;59(1):1-7
pubmed: 21328151
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Feb;96(2):1301-11
pubmed: 23245961
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48519
pubmed: 23133639
Vet Rec. 2007 Mar 3;160(9):287-93
pubmed: 17337605
Vet Q. 2001 Nov;23(4):162-9
pubmed: 11765233
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Apr;89(4):1267-79
pubmed: 16537959
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Jan;93(1):115-24
pubmed: 20059910
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Mar;96(3):1623-37
pubmed: 23357015