Display options
Cite
Biesheuvel MM, Santman-Berends IMGA, Barkema HW, et al. Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches. Front Vet Sci. 2021;8:687699doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.687699.
Biesheuvel, M. M., Santman-Berends, I. M. G. A., Barkema, H. W., Ritter, C., Berezowski, J., Guelbenzu, M., & Kaler, J. (2021). Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches. Frontiers in veterinary science, 8687699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.687699
Biesheuvel, Marit M, et al. "Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches." Frontiers in veterinary science vol. 8 (2021): 687699. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.687699
Biesheuvel MM, Santman-Berends IMGA, Barkema HW, Ritter C, Berezowski J, Guelbenzu M, Kaler J. Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches. Front Vet Sci. 2021 Dec 02;8:687699. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.687699. eCollection 2021. PMID: 34926632; PMCID: PMC8674677.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Vet Sci. 2021 Dec 02;8:687699. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.687699. eCollection 2021.

Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches.

Frontiers in veterinary science

Marit M Biesheuvel, Inge M G A Santman-Berends, Herman W Barkema, Caroline Ritter, John Berezowski, Maria Guelbenzu, Jasmeet Kaler

Affiliations

  1. Department of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  2. Research and Development Epidemiology, Royal GD, Deventer, Netherlands.
  3. Department of Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada.
  4. Schotland's Rural College, Inverness, United Kingdom.
  5. Veterinary Sciences Division, Agri Food and Biosciences Institute, Belfast, Ireland.
  6. School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

PMID: 34926632 PMCID: PMC8674677 DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2021.687699

Abstract

Understanding farmers' behavior regarding disease control is essential to successfully implement behavior change interventions that improve uptake of best practices. A literature review was conducted to identify theoretical underpinnings, analytical methodologies, and key behavioral determinants that have been described to understand farmers' behavior in disease control and prevention on cattle farms. Overall, 166 peer-reviewed manuscripts from studies conducted in 27 countries were identified. In the past decade, there were increasing reports on farmers' motivators and barriers, but no indication of application of appropriate social science methods. Furthermore, the majority (58%) of reviewed studies lacked a theoretical framework in their study design. However, when a theoretical underpinning was applied, the Theory of Planned Behavior was most commonly used (14% of total). The complexity of factors impacting farmers' behavior was illustrated when mapping all described key constructs of the reviewed papers in behavior change frameworks, such as the socioecological framework and the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model. Constructs related to personal influences and relationships between farmers and veterinarians were overrepresented, whereas constructs related to other interpersonal and contextual environments were not extensively studied. There was a general lack of use of validated scales to measure constructs and empirically validated theoretical frameworks to understand and predict farmers' behavior. Furthermore, studies mainly focused on measurements of intention of stakeholder behavior rather than actual behavior, although the former is a poor predictor of the latter. Finally, there is still a lack of robust evidence of behavior change interventions or techniques that result in a successful change in farmers' behavior. We concluded that for a sustainable behavior change, studies should include wider constructs at individual, interpersonal, and contextual levels. Furthermore, the use of empirically validated constructs and theoretical frameworks is encouraged. By using coherent frameworks, researchers could link constructs to design interventions, and thereby take the first step toward theory-driven, evidence-based interventions to influence farmers' behavior for disease control.

Copyright © 2021 Biesheuvel, Santman-Berends, Barkema, Ritter, Berezowski, Guelbenzu and Kaler.

Keywords: behavioral determinants; cattle; farmers; infectious disease; veterinarians

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. J Dairy Sci. 2020 Nov;103(11):10273-10282 - PubMed
  2. Vet Parasitol. 2015 Sep 15;212(3-4):308-17 - PubMed
  3. Public Health Nutr. 2013 Jun;16(6):1000-5 - PubMed
  4. BMC Vet Res. 2018 Feb 13;14(1):46 - PubMed
  5. Prev Vet Med. 2010 Mar 1;93(4):276-85 - PubMed
  6. Prev Vet Med. 2008 May 15;84(3-4):310-23 - PubMed
  7. Prev Vet Med. 2021 Jan;186:105226 - PubMed
  8. Prev Vet Med. 2009 Nov 15;92(3):210-23 - PubMed
  9. Psychol Health Med. 2003 Feb 1;8(1):3-18 - PubMed
  10. Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7866):205-213 - PubMed
  11. Ann Behav Med. 2008 Jun;35(3):358-62 - PubMed
  12. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):323-44 - PubMed
  13. Qual Health Res. 2018 Apr;28(5):824-831 - PubMed
  14. Vet J. 2013 Aug;197(2):259-67 - PubMed
  15. Front Vet Sci. 2018 Jun 21;5:137 - PubMed
  16. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(1):1-7 - PubMed
  17. Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55 - PubMed
  18. Nurse Res. 2010;17(4):29-40 - PubMed
  19. Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 13;9:2541 - PubMed
  20. Vet Rec. 2015 Oct 31;177(17):439 - PubMed
  21. Prev Vet Med. 2018 Jan 1;149:82-91 - PubMed
  22. Health Educ Q. 1988 Winter;15(4):351-77 - PubMed
  23. Prev Vet Med. 2013 Mar 1;108(4):321-33 - PubMed
  24. Prev Vet Med. 2016 Sep 15;132:20-31 - PubMed
  25. Aust Vet J. 1995 Mar;72(3):88-92 - PubMed
  26. J Dairy Sci. 2017 May;100(5):3329-3347 - PubMed
  27. Prev Vet Med. 2020 Sep;182:105092 - PubMed
  28. Prev Vet Med. 2016 May 1;127:84-93 - PubMed
  29. Ann Fam Med. 2013 Mar-Apr;11(2):130-6 - PubMed
  30. J Dairy Sci. 2014 May;97(5):2822-34 - PubMed
  31. Am J Health Promot. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(1):38-48 - PubMed
  32. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Dec 19;13:239 - PubMed
  33. J Dairy Sci. 2020 Apr;103(4):3250-3263 - PubMed
  34. BMC Vet Res. 2013 Apr 10;9:71 - PubMed
  35. Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77 - PubMed
  36. Prev Vet Med. 2008 Nov 17;87(3-4):358-72 - PubMed
  37. J Dairy Sci. 2009 Jul;92(7):3494-502 - PubMed
  38. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:307-26 - PubMed
  39. Prev Vet Med. 2015 Sep 1;121(1-2):30-40 - PubMed
  40. J Dairy Sci. 2007 Sep;90(9):4466-77 - PubMed
  41. Am J Health Promot. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(1):8-10 - PubMed
  42. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015 May;13(5):310-7 - PubMed
  43. Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42 - PubMed
  44. Prev Vet Med. 2019 Aug 1;169:104695 - PubMed
  45. Prev Vet Med. 2017 Apr 1;139(Pt B):123-133 - PubMed
  46. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;40(Pt 4):471-99 - PubMed

Publication Types