BACKGROUND: Livestock production accounts for nearly half of all agricultural output globally, but the long-term sustainability of the sector is threatened by a range of infectious diseases. Endemic diseases lead to a wide range of production losses and animal welfare issues, while transboundary and epidemic diseases can lead to widespread deaths, the implementation of stringent control measures, and a disruption of trade. Zoonotic diseases further threaten human health. It is therefore critical that livestock diseases are effectively controlled. When implementing disease control strategies and biosecurity measures, it is important to understand stakeholders’ views, particularly regarding which diseases should be prioritised. METHODS: The current study aims to develop our understanding of veterinarians’ views regarding infectious diseases in livestock across Belgium, Ireland, Hungary, Romania, and Sweden through an online survey. The survey examines veterinarians’ perception of the risk posed by infectious livestock diseases based on a three-part score comprising of: the perceived likelihood of an outbreak occurring; the impact of an outbreak; and the ease of controlling an outbreak. Veterinarians’ awareness of given diseases was also assessed. RESULTS: We report a high degree of variation in the perception of risk for livestock diseases across both the livestock production sectors examined, and countries. The transboundary diseases African swine fever, foot and mouth disease and avian influenza were seen as posing a high risk overall, however, bluetongue, lumpy skin disease, peste des petits ruminants, and sheep and goat pox showed a highly regional variation. Endemic diseases were often seen as posing a higher risk than transboundary diseases in many countries. We further identified several awareness gaps, particularly related to zoonotic diseases such as Hepatitis E, Campylobacter and Salmonella Dublin. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of risk for both transboundary and endemic diseases show a high degree of variation at the national level, often reflecting differences in the importance of production sectors by country. Critical awareness gaps for both transboundary, and zoonotic, diseases require further investigation.

Effective communication is crucial for strengthening collaboration and ensuring the successful implementation of biosecurity measures against infectious diseases. A collaborative approach, where farmers and veterinarians play a central role in decision-making, may have a greater impact on promoting the implementation of biosecurity practices compared to a top-down approach. The objective of this study was to explore the perspectives of researchers, official services, and industry on the preferred communication methods between farmers and various on-farm stakeholders. Data were collected through four simultaneous focus groups conducted within the framework of the COST Action BETTER project: three involving researchers, and one involving official services and industry people. The data were analyzed using content analysis, which generated three main themes and 13 subthemes: (i) effective methods for communicating biosecurity messages to farmers: direct interaction and practical learning, audio-visual media and support materials, importance of personalization and coordination, and challenges and innovative solutions; (ii) designing an optimal communication system to promote behavioral change in biosecurity: initial strategies for communication: knowledge and trust, integration of technological tools, mandatory programs and coordinated campaigns, continuous training and collaborative learning, and incentives and certifications; and (iii) measuring the success of biosecurity communication programs: evaluation tools and audits, key indicators and benchmarking, measuring attitudes and behavioral changes, and participation and knowledge as additional evaluation metrics. The findings highlight the need for collaborative, personalized, and sustainable approaches to biosecurity communication. This study provides valuable insights to inform the development and implementation of communication programs that remain effective over time.

PurposeFarm advisors provide advice and support to farmers, to help them change their on-farm behaviours. Despite their role as behaviour change helpers, little formal behaviour change training exists within advisory education. This study aims to adapt a behaviour change programme delivered to health practitioners to the advisory setting and evaluate its efficacy.Design/methodology/approachA mixed-methods, pre-post study was conducted. The programme was adapted from the 'MAP of Health Behaviour Change Learning Programme' (MAP) developed by NHS Education for Scotland. Eight advisors based in Teagasc (Republic of Ireland) completed an eLearning module and an in-person workshop facilitated by health psychologists, about the principles of person-centred communication and behaviour change techniques. Quantitative questionnaire data were descriptively analysed. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.FindingsAdvisors scored highly in perceived knowledge (mean: 5.6) post-training (6-point Likert scale). Three themes were elucidated: valuable activities, learnings, and programme evolution. Advisors valued open discussions and role-playing activities. A key learning was how to structure conversations about change. Further training on building motivation was deemed beneficial.Practical implicationThis study offers insights for those involved in advisory education, on ways of enhancing the skills of advisors to support farmers to change their on-farm behaviours, for instance related to antimicrobial use record keeping.Theoretical implicationThe MAP programme is transferrable to other disciplines outside health, who also provide behaviour change support.Originality/valueThis study proposes that adapting and delivering a behaviour change programme from the health setting, can enhance advisors' skills at supporting on-farm behaviour change.

Data-driven solutions can support stakeholders' decision-making when managing health and welfare in Atlantic salmon production. While many different types of data are being collected, knowledge about stakeholders' use and needs regarding this data and data tools in their day-to-day work is limited. The current study explores the status quo of using data and data tools in salmon health management and needs of the stakeholders. Fourteen focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were completed and analysed in Norway, Scotland and Ireland with salmon production managers, health experts and health inspectors from government and certification bodies (N = 44). Results showed that the participants valued the role that reliable data can play in salmon health management. Factors that influence data utilisation for decision-making were identified using the data lifecycle concept (i.e., the flow from collection to analysis and sharing). Generally, stakeholders preferred timely, ideally automatically recorded, standardised and high-quality data and wished for a tool that offers convenient access to data and facilitates data search and compilation. Furthermore, the comfort with which stakeholders use data tools varied, ranging from some stakeholders welcoming support from decision support tools to others preferring to rely mostly on their personal experience when analysing data. While some data sharing is mandatory (e.g., reporting of mortality from industry to authorities), the participants reported other forms of data sharing (e.g., informal exchange of information, not data, across companies). Lack of contextual factors contributes to a hesitancy to share data (e.g., lack of perceived benefits and fear over potential misuse). In Norway, stakeholders were more open to share data between the salmon industry and authorities. Being used to reporting more data, combined with operating in a larger industry where individual farms are not easy to single out from aggregated statistics, may have contributed to gaining trust among participants in Norway. However, in all three countries, some participants were reluctant to share data with the public or tied it to preconditions (e.g., ensuring it was presented in the right context, with explanations on the background for mortality), while others highlighted positive effects of sharing data, such as benchmarking and increased focus on preventive measures. Addressing barriers to data and data tool utilisation provides valuable insights that could benefit salmon health management and sustainability of the sector.

IntroductionData-driven strategies might combat the spreading of infectious pig disease and improve the early detection of potential pig health problems. The current study aimed to explore individual views on data recording and use of data tools for pig health management by recruiting stakeholders (N = 202) in Spain, Ireland, and the Netherlands.MethodsQuestionnaire focused on current on-farm challenges, current status of data recording on farms, and evaluation of the two mock data tools. Particularly, “benchmarking tool” was designed to visualize individual farm’s pig mortality, targeting the management of infectious respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases; and “early-warning tool” was designed to generate an alarm through monitoring coughs in pigs, targeting the management of infectious respiratory diseases.ResultsResults showed that respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases and aggressive behaviors were the most frequently mentioned health challenge and welfare challenge, respectively. Most of the data was more frequently recorded electronically than on paper. In general, the “benchmarking tool” was perceived as useful for the management of infectious respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases, and the “early-warning tool” was evaluated as useful for the management of infectious respiratory diseases. Several barriers to the perceived usefulness of these two tools were identified, such as the lack of contextual information, inconvenience of data input, limited internet access, reliance on one’s own experience and observation, technical hurdles, and mistrust of information output. The perceived usefulness of both tools was higher among highly educated participants, and those who reported being integrators and positive toward technology for disease control. Female participants and those who came from integrated farms evaluated the “early-warning tool” as more useful compared to their counterparts. The perceived usefulness of the “early-warning tool” was negatively affected by age and work experience, but positively affected by extensiveness of data recording, positive attitude toward technology, and the current use of technology.DiscussionIn summary, participants showed optimistic views on the use of data tools to support their decision-making and management of infectious pig respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. It is noteworthy that data tools should not only convey the value of data for informed decision-making but also consider stakeholders’ preconditions and needs for data tools.

PurposeFarm advisors are professionals who support farmers to enhance their knowledge, develop skills and solve problems, to facilitate the adoption of beneficial behaviours. However, there is a dearth of literature, exploring how advisors deliver this support to farmers; or more specifically, the 'behaviour change techniques' (BCTs) they use. Accordingly, using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v01 (BCTTv01), the current study will explore the support advisors perceive they deliver to farmers, to foster on-farm behaviour change, and the factors which influence its effective delivery.Design/Methodology/ApproachEight semi-structured interviews were conducted with farm advisors. Interview transcripts underwent inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis, to identify the specific BCTs advisors delivered when working with farmers and the factors which influenced their effective delivery.FindingsTwenty-one BCTs were identified, including goal setting and social support. Relational factors including building trust, fostering collaboration, displaying compassion and supporting autonomy, facilitated a supportive environment for the delivery of these techniques.Practical implicationTo assist advisors in their role, behaviour change training focused on understanding the change process and building motivation, is needed.Theoretical implicationThe findings advance the theoretical understanding of how advisors support behaviour change on-farm, through the application of the BCTTv01.OriginalityThis study takes a novel approach to further the understanding of how advisors support on-farm behaviour change, by utilising the BCTTv01.

BackgroundApplication of data-driven strategies may support veterinarians' decision-making, benefitting pig disease prevention and control. However, little is known about veterinarians' need for data utilisation to support their decision-making process. The current study used qualitative methods, specifically focus group discussions, to explore veterinarians' views on data utilisation and their need for data tools in relation to pig health and welfare management in Spain, the Netherlands, and Ireland.ResultsGenerally, veterinarians pointed out the potential benefits of using technology for pig health and welfare management, but data is not yet structurally available to support their decision-making. Veterinarians pointed out the challenge of collecting, recording, and accessing data in a consistent and timely manner. Besides, the reliability, standardisation, and the context of data were identified as important factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of data utilisation by veterinarians. A user-friendly, adaptable, and integrated data tool was regarded as potentially helpful for veterinarians' daily work and supporting their decision-making. Specifically, veterinarians, particularly independent veterinary practitioners, noted a need for easy access to pig information. Veterinarians such as those working for integrated companies, corporate veterinarians, and independent veterinary practitioners expressed their need for data tools that provide useful information to monitor pig health and welfare in real-time, to visualise the prevalence of endemic disease based on a shared report between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties, to support decision-making, and to receive early warnings for disease prevention and control.ConclusionsIt is concluded that the management of pig health and welfare may benefit from data utilisation if the quality of data can be assured, the data tools can meet veterinarians' needs for decision-making, and the collaboration of sharing data and using data between farmers, veterinarians, and other professional parties can be enhanced. Nevertheless, several notable technical and institutional barriers still exist, which need to be overcome.

Farm advisors provide knowledge and support to farmers, to help them change their on-farm practices or behaviours, with a view to improving the farm’s overall sustainability and competitiveness(1,2). In this way, advisors can be viewed as agents of change(3). In order to fulfil their role as agents of change, advisors must possess sufficient knowledge of human psychology and behavioural science, which is the discipline involved with understanding, predicting and changing behaviour(4,5). Despite this, within advisory education and professional development, it is considered that greater emphasis is given to advisory technical knowledge acquisition, than how to work effectively with others to support learning and change(6). Accordingly, this study aims to implement a behaviour change communication training programme for farm advisors and evaluate its efficacy. As much work within the health and social care field has been undertaken to support health related behaviour change, this study aims to adapt a behaviour change communication training programme originally developed for use within this field to the advisory setting(7,8).A mixed-methods case study under the pragmatic worldview was conducted. Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Queen’s University Belfast. The programme was adapted from the ‘MAP of Health Behaviour Change Learning Programme’ (MAP) created by NHS Education for Scotland(9). Eight farm advisors completed the programme delivered by health psychologists, which involved the completion of a 40-minute online module and a one-day in-person workshop about the principles of person-centred communication and behaviour change techniques. The Brinkerhoff training evaluation model guided the evaluation(10). Quantitative questionnaire data, including perceived knowledge and confidence, was descriptively analysed. Qualitative data including surveys, logs and focus group/interview data was thematically analysed.Descriptive analysis found advisors scored highly in perceived knowledge (mean: 5.5) and confidence (mean: 5.5) post-training (measured on 6-point Likert scale). Thematic analysis determined three themes: valuable activities, takeaways, and programme evolution. Advisors valued open discussions and role-playing activities. A key takeaway was how to structure conversations about change; firstly, identifying a person’s stage of change, then delivering behaviour change techniques tailored to that stage. Further training on how to support individuals to explore and build motivation towards change was deemed beneficial.MAP was shown to be an effective training programme with applications in agriculture. This study offers insights for those involved in advisory education. Incorporating behaviour change communication courses into advisory programmes helps advisors develop knowledge surrounding the psychology behind behaviour change and additional competencies in supporting behaviour change at the farm level.

Milk recording is a critical tool in dairy farming, providing individual cow information. When used effectively, this data contributes to on-farm productivity, herd health management decisions and supports prudent veterinary prescribing of antimicrobials. Although an industry and government priority, uptake has been relatively slow in Ireland. This multi-methods, three-part study aimed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the benefits to farm performance, and factors driving uptake of milk recording on Irish dairy farms. It involved an economic analysis of N=516 farms from 2008-2019, a workshop with N=26 stakeholders and an online survey of N=197 non-milk-recording farmers. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using econometric models and thematic analysis respectively. Results were synthesised using the COM-B model to gain a deeper understanding of what drives the target behaviour. The study revealed that agricultural education, farm location, farm specialisation in dairy and membership of a farmer discussion group were the main factors influencing uptake of milk recording. Milk recording was associated with a €39.04/cow increase in gross margin, a 177.58litres/cow increase in milk yield and a reduction of 13,450 cells/mL in bulk milk tank somatic cell count readings. Infrastructural constraints, cost, lack of benefits and workload were the most reported perceived barriers to milk recording by farmers. The Behaviour Change Wheel illustrates how to utilise findings and systematically develop future interventions to increase milk recording uptake. This study highlights the importance of a multi-methods approach to agricultural technology adoption and the need for evidence-based methodology when developing behaviour change interventions.

Antimicrobial use (AMU) data are essential to monitor the effect of AMU reduction strategies in animal health. The use of technology and herd recording software to record AMU will be vital to scale the collation of these data in the future. The aim of this study was to determine the barriers and facilitators to Irish dairy farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data. Thirty-three Irish dairy farmers involved in a study on AMU monitoring were asked to record their AMU using a herd recording software over a 12-mo period. At the end of the 12-mo period, 10 of these farmers were selected to take part in semi -structured interviews exploring their opinions on recording AMU, the use of herd recording software, and sharing AMU data. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Several barriers and facilitators to farmers recording their AMU using a herd recording software and sharing AMU data were identified. Barriers included the age and generation of the farmer, farm infrastructure, a lack of training and education, a lack of knowledge around the benefits of digital data, a lack of incentive to digitize records, and a fear of repercussions. Facilitators identified by the farmers included the benefits of having instantly available data for making herd management decisions, reduced paperwork, increased organization for inspections, and a potential positive effect on the image of the dairy industry. To increase the uptake of new technology to record AMU at farm -level, farmers will need support in terms of education and training around the software available to them and reassurance around the perceived risks of repercussions with sharing data in a digital format.

Background This cross-sectional study describes a survey designed to fill knowledge gaps regarding farm management practices, parlour management practices and implemented technologies, milking management practices, somatic cell count (SCC) control strategies, farmer demographics and attitudes around SCC management on a sample of Irish dairy farms.Results We categorized 376 complete responses by herd size quartile and calving pattern. The average respondent herd was 131 cows with most (82.2%) operating a seasonal calving system. The median monthly bulk tank somatic cell count for seasonal calving systems was 137,000 cells/ml (range 20,000 - 1,269,000 cells/ml), 170,000 cells/ml for split-calving systems (range 46,000 - 644,000 cells/ml) and 186,000 cells/ml for 'other' herds (range 20,000 - 664,000 cells/ml). The most common parlour types were swing-over herringbones (59.1%) and herringbones with recording jars (22.2%). The average number of units across herringbone parlours was 15, 49 in rotary parlours and two boxes on automatic milking system (AMS) farms. The most common parlour technologies were in-parlour feeding systems (84.5%), automatic washers on the bulk tank (72.8%), automatic cluster removers (57.9%), and entrance or exit gates controlled from the parlour pit (52.2%). Veterinary professionals, farming colleagues and processor milk quality advisors were the most commonly utilised sources of advice for SCC management (by 76.9%, 50.0% and 39.2% of respondents respectively).Conclusions In this study, we successfully utilised a national survey to quantify farm management practices, parlour management practices and technology adoption levels, milking management practices, SCC control strategies and farmer demographics on 376 dairy farms in the Republic of Ireland. Rotary and AMS parlours had the most parlour technologies of any parlour type. Technology add-ons were generally less prevalent on farms with smaller herds. Despite finding areas for improvement with regard to frequency of liner changes, glove-wearing practices and engagement with bacteriology of milk samples, we also found evidence of high levels of documentation of mastitis treatments and high use of post-milking teat disinfection. We discovered that Irish dairy farmers are relatively content in their careers but face pressures regarding changes to the legislation around prudent antimicrobial use in their herds.

Risk assessments are important tools to identify deficits in biosecurity management practices. A major strength of some existing tools is that they facilitate cross-country comparisons. However, a weakness is their failure to account for unique intra-national farming enterprise structures such as, for example, pasture-based dairying. Currently, there are no suitable biosecurity risk assessment tools applicable to pasture-based dairying as practiced in Ireland. In addition to a need for enterprise-specific biosecurity risk assessment tools, the weighting of risk scores generated by these tools needs to be context-specific to ensure validity in assessing biosecurity risks in the farming sector of interest. Furthermore, existing biosecurity audits rely exclusively on respondent recall to answer questions about management practices. To address each of these limitations of existing biosecurity risk assessment tools we developed and optimised a new biosecurity risk assessment tool (BioscoreDairy) designed to assess the biosecurity status of pasture-based dairy farms in Ireland. It consists of two parts, a biosecurity questionnaire and a cattle movement records audit. A questionnaire was developed on biosecurity management practices appropriate for a pasture-based dairy system. Multiple national expert groups were leveraged to provide weightings for the different management practices in the questionnaire using the best-worst scaling methodology of MaxDiff. The results of this process provided a numerical categorisation that could then be used to assign scores to the individual biosecurity management practices. These practices were grouped into three biosecurity areas; risk of disease entry, speed of disease spread and diagnosis of infection. Within each of these three areas, a traffic light system was used to compare a farm’s biosecurity risks to other similar farms—least risk (green; within the top third of farms), concerning practice (amber; middle third) and worst practice or greatest risk (red; lowest third). In addition to these scores, the cattle introduction profile of a herd over the previous 3 years, based on nationally recorded data, was audited, compared amongst dairy farm enterprise subtypes, and included in the BioscoreDairy report. BioscoreDairy is therefore the first biosecurity risk assessment tool tailored to pasture-based dairy farm systems, both for individual farm reporting and for benchmarking against comparable farms.

In view of the rising threat of anthelmintic resistance in parasite populations and the planned change of classification of anthelmintics in Ireland for food animals to prescription-only medicines, there is a need for increased focus on parasite control strategies for horses. Effective parasite control programs (PCPs) are complex, necessitating the application of risk-assessment based on host immune status, infection pressure, type of parasite and seasonality to determine the requirement for anthelmintic administration and an understanding of parasite biology to employ effective, non- therapeutic, parasite control measures. The aim of this study was to explore horse breeders' attitudes and behaviours towards general parasite control practices and anthelmintic use on thoroughbred studs in Ireland using qualitative research methods, in order to help identify barriers to the implementation of sustainable equine PCPs supported by veterinary involvement. One-to-one, qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 breeders, using an interview topic guide that allowed for an open questioning style. The topic guide facilitated discussion around the following areas: (i) parasite control measures (general approach, (ii) veterinary involvement, (iii) use of anthelmintics, (iv) use of diagnostics, pasture management), (v) recording of anthelmintic use and (vi) anthelmintic resistance. Convenience, purposive (subjective selection) sampling was used to select a small group of participants that reflected the characteristics of current thoroughbred breeders in Ireland taking into account farm type, farm size, geographical location. The interviews were transcribed, and a method of inductive thematic analysis (a data driven identification and analysis of themes) was performed. Assessment of current behaviours by these participants found that PCPs were primarily based on the prophylactic use of anthelmintics without a strategic rationale. A key driver of behaviour regarding parasite prevention practices was localised routine, dictated by tradition, that gave breeders a sense of confidence and protection regarding parasite control. The perceptions of the benefits of parasitology diagnostics were varied and their application to control was poorly understood. Anthelmintic resistance was recognised as an industry threat but not an issue for individual farms. By using a qualitative approach, this study offers insights into the possible barriers to the adoption of sustainable PCPs on Irish thoroughbred farms and highlights the need for end-user involvement in the preparation of future guidelines.

Employing a theoretical model of human behaviour (COMB), the current study explores the factors influencing veterinarians' engagement with antibiotic use stewardship on Irish dairy farms. One-to-one semi structured interviews were carried out by telephone with 12 veterinarians whose daily work focused on dairy cattle. A thematic analysis approach was undertaken. The identified themes and sub-themes were then mapped to the COM-B model. This study identified challenges faced by veterinarians when trying to prescribe responsibly which included lack of training to encourage farmer behaviour change, issues with laboratory testing, pressures from farmers to prescribe antimicrobials, concern for animal welfare and farmers going elsewhere for prescriptions. Having a good knowledge of AMR, peers as an advice source, potential financial benefits for farmers as a result of reduced antimicrobial costs and accepting a shared responsibility for AMR, facilitate veterinarians in their role as antimicrobial stewards. The barriers and facilitators identified as influencing veterinarians' capability, opportunity and motivation to responsibly prescribe antimicrobials formed the basis for a number of practical recommendations which should be considered by advisory and policy making teams. Recommendations include; continuous training for veterinarians on AMR and alternatives to overcome the barriers faced when trying to promote reduced AMU, veterinarian peer support groups to improve confidence in their knowledge and decision making to minimise the effect of client pressures/expectations, setting up collaborative farmer and veterinarian working groups to promote a transparent working relationship and the development of affordable and efficient diagnostic and susceptibility testing.

BACKGROUND:In the coming years, major governance changes in the form of policy directives and regulations will catalyse major top-down change with respect to animal health on European farms in an effort to combat the OneHealth threat of antimicrobial resistance. This top-down approach must be met with bottom-up strategies to ensure target actors (namely, farmers and vets) are supported and motivated to change their practices, thus, avoiding unintended consequences of forced change. Although much behavioural research has explored the factors influencing antimicrobial practices on farms, a gap exists translating these findings into evidence-based behaviour change interventions that can be put into practice. The current study aims to fill this gap. It provides insights into identifying, understanding, and changing the behaviours of farmers and veterinarians with respect to the responsible use of antimicrobials in farming.RESULTS:Through an inter-disciplinary and multi-actor approach, the study combines scientific knowledge from the behavioural sciences and animal health sciences, coupled with tacit knowledge from a co-design, participatory approach to recommend seven behaviour change interventions that can help to support good practices amongst farmers and vets, with respect to animal health, and reduce the use of antimicrobials on farms. The behaviour change interventions include message framing; OneHealth awareness campaign; specialised communications training; on-farm visual prompts and tools; social support strategies (for both farmers and vets); and antimicrobial use monitoring. The study details each intervention with respect to their evidence base and scientific concept, grounded in behavioural science, along with stakeholder feedback on design and delivery of the interventions.CONCLUSIONS:These behaviour change interventions can be taken, adapted, and put into practice by the agri-food community to support good animal health practices and responsible antimicrobial use on farms.

In dairy farming, mastitis treatment is the most common reason for antimicrobial use. The overuse or misuse of antibiotics in agriculture has been associated with the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Traditionally, blanket dry cow therapy (BDCT), in which all cows receive antibiotic treatment, was used prophylactically to prevent and manage disease spread. In recent years, there has been a move toward selective dry cow therapy (SDCT), in which only clinically infected cows are treated with antibiotics. This study aimed to explore farmer attitudes toward antibiotic use (ABU), using the COM-B (Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior) model as a framework, to identify predictors of changing behavior toward SDCT and suggest interventions to encourage its uptake. Participant farmers (n = 240) were surveyed online between March and July 2021. Five items were found to be significant predictors of farmers having stopped BDCT: (1) having lower knowledge of AMR, (2) greater awareness of AMR and ABU (Capability), (3) feeling social pressure to reduce ABU (Opportunity), and (4) having greater professional identity, and (5) having positive emotions associated with stopping BDCT (Motivation). Direct logistic regression found that these 5 factors explained between 22 and 34.1% of the variance in making changes to BDCT practices. Additionally, objective knowledge was not correlated with current positive antibiotic practices, and farmers often perceived their antibiotic practices as more responsible than they actually were. A multifaceted approach, encompassing each of the predictors highlighted, should be taken to encourage farmer behavior change in relation to stopping BDCT. Additionally, as farmers' perceptions of their own behaviors may not align with their actual practices, awareness raising of what constitutes "responsible" behavior should be targeted at dairy farmers to motivate them to take action and adopt more responsible antibiotic practices.

The need to move towards Selective Dry Cow Therapy (SDCT) has become increasingly pertinent as a means to reduce the use of antibiotics in the dairy sector. With the EU 2022 ban on prophylactic antibiotics at drying off, practices on some farms will need to drastically change. In Ireland, one particular challenge to the sector-wide transition to SDCT is the lack of widespread uptake of milk recording across dairy farms, a decision support tool which can support mastitis control and help identify cows to select for SDCT. The current study examined readiness to engage in milk recording amongst Irish dairy farmers, and specifically investigated the role of mastitis risk perceptions in shaping farmers' readiness. The study explores the multifaceted nature of risk perception as a construct shaping farmers' attitudes. An online survey was carried out with 197 Irish dairy farmers exploring their attitudes towards mastitis and milk recording. A cluster analysis classified farmers according to their mastitis risk perceptions, with 3 segments identified with differing risk perception profiles. Elevated mastitis risk perceptions were linked to an increased readiness to milk record. However, this relationship was not universal across all farmers. One segment of farmers in the current study maintain low mastitis risk perceptions and remain unmotivated to engage in milk recording. The study concludes that targeted risk communication strategies related to mastitis and milk recording are needed to encourage the move towards SDCT and reduced AMR. Results suggest that the types of risk communication strategies - message framing and two-way risk communication - should reflect farmers' types of mastitis risk perceptions to have the most effective impact on milk recording uptake.

OBJECTIVES:Self-efficacy - an individual's judgement of their ability to successfully perform a behaviour - is commonly used to explain and predict behaviour. It is measured through self-report questionnaires. These scales require good content validity, that is must measure the full scope and content of the construct without contamination from similar constructs. This study uses a systematic, transparent quantitative method (discriminant content validation, DCV) to assess the content validity of a variety of self-efficacy items and qualitatively explores participant interpretations of these items.DESIGN:A quantitative DCV and qualitative think-aloud study of self-efficacy item interpretation.METHODS:Participants (n = 21) were presented with items designed to measure self-efficacy and related constructs following standard DCV methodology. Items were rated against construct definitions to determine whether they measured a particular construct (yes/no). Judges' confidence in each assessment was also assessed (%) and used to establish quantitative estimates of content validity for each item. A qualitative think-aloud study explored the judgements made in a subset of participants.RESULTS:8/8 self-efficacy items were found to measure self-efficacy; however, 2/8 of these also measured motivation. 6/8 items displayed discriminant content validity and thus can be considered 'pure' measures of self-efficacy. The think-aloud study indicated that item wording is a likely cause of item misinterpretation.CONCLUSIONS:Self-efficacy items vary in terms of their content validity with only some of the items assessed providing 'pure' measures of the self-efficacy construct. Item wording should be considered during study design to avoid misinterpretation. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? For decades, questions have been raised relating to the content validity of self-efficacy scales, with suggestions of possible construct contamination. Previous studies have shown that manipulation of the wording of self-efficacy scale items results in varied participant interpretations. While self-efficacy items have been found to be distinguishable from other similar constructs, it is equally important to ensure that they are uncontaminated by different constructs within the same theory. Otherwise, when the theory is used to investigate behaviour, variance attributable to self-efficacy may be attributed to a different construct or vice versa. The present study uses discriminant content validation to test this and a think-aloud study to explore participants' interpretation of classic self-efficacy items. What does this study add? The study uses discriminant content validity methodology to assess the content validity of self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy items which are contaminated with content from other constructs are identified. Information is presented on 'pure' self-efficacy items which can be used to guide item selection in future studies.