Engaging livestock keepers as actors in animal health · Engaging livestock keepers as actors in...
Transcript of Engaging livestock keepers as actors in animal health · Engaging livestock keepers as actors in...
Engaging livestock keepers
as actors in animal health
Angus Cameron
AusVet Animal Health Services
Context
• Areas of interest
– Animal health surveillance
– Animal health information systems
• Principles applicable to other areas of
animal health
Starting assumptions
• Main purpose of surveillance
– report to OIE and FAO
• Focus on priority diseases
– Collecting data on routine diseases is a waste
of time and money
• Designing surveillance
– Senior veterinary officials or epidemiologists at
the central level
Starting assumptions…
• Early detection
– Difficult and expensive so focus resources on:
• priority diseases in priority areas
• use reliable (high Se and Sp) tests
• Passive surveillance (farmer reporting)
– Hard to make farmers report disease
• Farmers are stupid
Theory
• Reasons for surveillance
– Demonstration of freedom
– Describe level of disease
– Case finding
– Early detection
Sampling
possible
Theory…
• Requirements for early detection and case
finding:
– Complete coverage of the population
– Continuous surveillance
• Conclusion
– Farmer reporting is the only practical and
affordable approach
• Not just another component
• Must be the core of almost all surveillance systems
Early detection / Case finding
• Objective
– Every case (suspect of being a priority
disease)
– Reported immediately, and
– Investigated to provide definitive diagnosis (or
at least rule out priority disease)
• Reality
– Almost always fail
Why?
• Farmers fail to report
• Why?
– Farmers are not stupid
– Rational decision based on:
intuitive cost-benefit analysis
Example
• Notifiable disease
– (authorities not very interested in routine
diseases)
– Cost:
• Definite disruption
• Probable quarantine
• Possible culling of all animals
– Benefit for the farmer
• Almost none
• All benefits at higher level
Conclusion
• Farmers must get direct, personal benefit
from reporting
– Can’t target priority diseases
• Must work with all diseases of interest to the farmer
– Can’t aim to do surveillance
• Must provide animal health service (give) not do
surveillance (take)
Philosophical framework (part 1)
1. Farmer must get direct personal benefit
from participating in disease reporting
2. Passive reporting systems must work with
all diseases, not just priority diseases
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan-0
5
May-0
5
Sep-0
5
Jan-0
6
May-0
6
Sep-0
6
Jan-0
7
May-0
7
Sep-0
7
Jan-0
8
May-0
8
Sep-0
8
Jan-0
9
May-0
9
Sep-0
9
Jan-1
0
Staff Incentives
Philosophical framework (part 2)
3. All players must get direct personal
benefit from participating in disease
reporting
4. Information system must be designed by
field and local staff to meet their needs,
not central staff
Consequences
• Aim:
– Collect data on all diseases instantly
• Result:
– Too much paper, too much data
• Traditional solution
– Hierarchical compilation and filtering
• Slow
• Data of very little value
New approach: Big Surveillance
• Components
– Powerful central database
– Field staff capture data in electronic format
• SMS, mobile Apps, etc.
– Direct, immediate submission to central
database
– Automated checking, analysis and reporting
– Immediate feedback for case management
– Atomic data handling
Theory Practice
• Philosophy implemented in Indonesia
National integrated animal health information system
• Result
– 30 fold increase in reporting
– Sustainable
– No incentives
More information
• YouTube
– Search for
• iSIKHNAS - user testimonies
• iSIKHNAS - how the system works
• Web
– http://wiki.isikhnas.com
• Full system documentation
• Indonesian and English
Acknowledgements
• Indonesian funding
– DGLAHS
• Team members
– M Syibli
– Sigit Nurtanto
– S Yulianti
– CK Yohana
– Priyono
– RN Muhammad
– Soegiarto
– and many more…
• Australian funding
– AusAID
– Department of
Agriculture
• Team members
– Jonathan Happold
– Albertus Muljono
– Catriona Mackenzie
– and many more…
Thank you