What is a 'good' website for communicating biosecurity information to farmers and veterinarians?
Elsevier
2025
Yildiz_etal_2025_ResVetSci_What_is.pdf - Publisher's version - 2.48 MB
How to cite: Ramazan Yildiz, Georgios Batikas, Anna Maria Iatrou, Alberto Allepuz, Blerta Mehmedi, Rreze M. Gecaj, Marco De Nardi, Ina Toppari, Constance Wielick, Claude Saegerman, Maria-Eleni Filippitzi, Tarmo Niine, Jarkko K. Niemi, What is a “good” website for communicating biosecurity information to farmers and veterinarians?, Research in Veterinary Science, Volume 197, 2025, 105938,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2025.105938.
Pysyvä osoite
Tiivistelmä
Although many websites provide biosecurity information, there is no structured guidance on what constitutes an effective biosecurity website. This study aimed to understand what is a good biosecurity website for farmers and veterinarians, and to what extent different websites meet the proposed good features. The study included three steps: i) A World Café activity was conducted to identify the features of a “good” biosecurity website. ii) A sample of biosecurity websites was identified through an online survey and generative artificial intelligence and then screened by researchers. iii) The main improvement needs of biosecurity websites were detected by comparing the screened websites with the features of a “good” biosecurity website. Based on the World Café, the features of a good biosecurity website targeted to farmers were ease of use, cost-free access, availability in local languages and content including, for example, biosecurity lessons with media, examples of farm practices, biosecurity guidelines, self-evaluation tests of person's knowledge and farm's biosecurity level, and news about disease outbreaks and regulations. A good website for veterinarians should contain more detailed protocols, guidelines and tools than a website for farmers, and resources for creating biosecurity plans and enhancing veterinarian-farmer communication. The depth and breadth of information available on the screened websites varied. Most websites had a limited number of “good” features present. The comparison step suggested that the greatest improvement potential among the websites was in adding information on how to communicate about biosecurity, biosecurity's costs and benefits, self-evaluation tests, and videos and illustrations about biosecurity measures.
ISBN
OKM-julkaisutyyppi
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Julkaisusarja
Research in veterinary science
Volyymi
197
Numero
Sivut
Sivut
11 p.
ISSN
0034-5288
1532-2661
1532-2661
