Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDuarte, Fernando
dc.contributor.authorTamminen, Lena-Mari
dc.contributor.authorKjosevski, Miroslav
dc.contributor.authorCiaravino, Giovanna
dc.contributor.authorDelpont, Mattias
dc.contributor.authorCorreia-Gomes, Carla
dc.contributor.authorvan den Borne, Bart H.P.
dc.contributor.authorChantziaras, Ilias
dc.contributor.authorAlarcon, Laura Valeria
dc.contributor.authorSvennesen, Line
dc.contributor.authorToppari, Ina
dc.contributor.authorPiccirillo, Alessandra
dc.contributor.authorGecaj, Rreze M.
dc.contributor.authorZbikowski, Artur
dc.contributor.authorNunes, Telmo
dc.contributor.authorProdanov-Radulović, Jasna
dc.contributor.authorDe Nardi, Marco
dc.contributor.authorNedosekov, Vitalii
dc.contributor.authorDesvars-Larrive, Amelie
dc.contributor.authorAllepuz, Alberto
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-13T11:46:32Z
dc.date.available2025-03-13T11:46:32Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.identifier.issn0167-5877
dc.identifier.urihttps://repo.niv.ns.ac.rs/xmlui/handle/123456789/955
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to identify which biosecurity assessment methods (BAMs) are currently used in practice in animal farms. To address this, a structured questionnaire was developed to gather information such as the animal species, main objectives, type of enforcement, output generated and feedback of the result. In the context of the BETTER Cost Action project, country representatives identified in each of their countries which BAMs were used and completed an online survey. The survey was prepared and translated in 23 languages. Besides a descriptive analysis, clusters of BAMs were determined using a multiple correspondence analysis. Responses, collected between December 2022 and July 2023, included 74 BAMs used in 28 countries. Most of them were used in a single country while three were used in multiple countries. This study provides a comprehensive picture of existing BAMs and insights into their diversity, such as variations in objectives, implementation, evaluators, respondents, feedback, or assessment outputs. Moreover, we identified four BAMs clusters differentiated by their objective, evaluator and type of feedback provided. This study might also represent the basis for future research on strengths and weaknesses of different BAMs.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSpecial thanks to all national focal points for their support in data collection and validation. Thanks to all BETTER Cost Action members for their invaluable comments, which contributed to improving the quality of the study. This article is based upon work from COST Action BETTER (CA20103) https://better-biosecurity.eu/, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). The first author is funded by the Chilean National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) / Scholarship Program / DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/ 2020–72210236.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.sourcePreventive Veterinary Medicineen_US
dc.subjectBiosecurityen_US
dc.subjectAssessmenten_US
dc.subjectPreventionen_US
dc.subjectFarmen_US
dc.subjectSurveyen_US
dc.titleMethods to assess on-farm biosecurity in Europe and beyonden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106486
dc.citation.volume239en_US
dc.citation.spage106486en_US
dc.citation.rankM21en_US
dc.type.versionpublisheden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record