Progress 01/09/12 to 06/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Overall Study Design: Adapting an iterative decision-making process similar to the Delphi method utilized by RAND Corporation, this study utilized a series of workshops, meetings, consultations and surveys to develop and address the research question: What are the high priority biological hazards of concern from Minnesota’s wildlife to domesticated animal populations? The research design team used the term “biological hazards” rather than “diseases” to acknowledge that there could be other biological issues such as invasive species and movement of animals of concern to the selected stakeholders. Therefore, biological hazards was explicitly stated as any living organism that can cause a disease or pose a threat to livestock populations, including infectious diseases, animal pests, zoonoses, invasive alien species, or release of genetically modified organisms. The principal investigators and research design team consisted of faculty and experts from the University of Minnesota (UMN) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) representing diverse disciplines ranging from agricultural economics and policy and wildlife disease ecology to fish disease management, raptor rehabilitation, and swine disease. Two online surveys (Survey 1 and Survey 2) were used to develop consensus of subject matter expertise on biological hazards (BH) and criteria relevant to addressing the research question. These surveys were developed in consultation with the College of Liberal Arts Office of Information Technology (CLA-OIT) Survey Services. Data analyses were run utilizing SPSS 21 and Microsoft Excel 2010; no statistics were run as the power of our sample was limited. After Survey 2, a half-day workshop was held with the research design team to develop the appropriate biological hazard prioritization decision tool. Respondents were solicitied largely from the academic and professional community within MN, but some regional and national (US) experts were added if they had knowledge about MN and expertise was limited within MN. Overall this discussion included a broad swath of sectors: -UMN (several health colleges, agriculture and biology) -MN Department of Agriculture -MN Department of Health -MN Department of Natural Resources -MN Board of Animal Health -Audobon Minnesota -US FWS -US Geological Survey -MN Cattlemen's Association -Private fisheries industries Survey 1 Results: List of Possible Biological Hazard Of the 68 respondents who completed Survey 1, the majority represented regulatory agencies (46%) and academia (38%). The remaining respondents represented the private sector (15%) and conservation interests (1%). In regards to specific animal expertise, the majority of respondents had some background in wild (51%) or domestic fish (35%) and aquatic animal populations (32%). The distribution of domestic terrestrial animals, wild avians, wild terrestrial animals, and domestic avians was similar at 25%, 25%, 24%, 19%, respectively. Other animal expertise in bats, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and other wildlife were also represented by the survey to a lesser extent (<10% of respondents). Some respondents showed expertise in more than one animal population. Animal Expertise Represented:Self reported expertise of respondents included both domestic [terrestrial (25%), avian (20 %), fish (35%)] and wildlife animals [terrestrial (25%), reptile (9%), avian (25%), insects (8%), bats (8%), amphibians (8%), wild fish (50%), and other aquatic spp. (32%)]. Several people claimed expertise in 'other' domestic animals (12%) and wildlife spp (11%) species as well. Survey 2 Results: For Survey 2, 65 respondents consented, with 50 respondents who were able to continue beyond the first question based on expertise in domestic animals. The majority of expertise was represented in livestock (38%), poultry (28%), and aquatic animals (24%). Equine and cervid expertise was limited to < 5% each. Participation was relatively balanced between Industry 37.7% (Private), 27.9% Academia, 26.2% Regulatory/Government, and 1% Conservation Changes/Problems: Changes: 1) the planned workshops were replaced with surveys, thus funds went into survey design and dissemination rather than workshop hosting. This reflected a major change in the methods as we decided the Delphi expert elicitation process was most suitable. 2) the final 'list of prioritiy pathogens' was replaced by the matrix tool that will be more useful to policy makers over the long term than a static list of diseases relevent today, rather than a process relevent long term. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? 1. This presented one of our Veterinary Public Health residents with the opportunity to train on 1) Risk analysis paradigm, 2) Delphi methodology, 3) project management, 4) Group facilitation and risk communication, 5) oral and written presentation of results. 2. Through its corporation into the international guidelines as a case study, it will help professional development of wildlife, livestock and human health experts and policy makers the world over. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? 1) the final report to stakeholders is in progress 2) peer reviewed publication (one submitted for aquatic community, one submitted to general risk analsysis scientific audience) 3) lay publication for State of MN in prep 4) planned submission to MN vet conference 5) invited to speak at DNR aquatics risk assessment working group and conference 2) peer reviewed publication (one submitted for aquatic community, one submitted to general risk analsysis scientific audience) 3) lay publication for State of MN in prep 4) planned submission to MN vet conference 5) invited to speak at DNR aquatics risk assessment working group and conference a number of venues such as professional conferences, peer reviewed literature, Minnesota health policy lay publications, and encorparoted as a case study in the OIE-IUCN international guidelines. Thus, we have accomplished a change in knowledge, both in results and methodology, for scientists and policy makers, as well as trainees in the future. We are hopeful that this will result in a change in action of how MN policy makers engage and make decisions concerning diseases which include wildlife in their ecology. Finally, the creation and utilization of a broad variety of experts has a chance of changing the condition of how both experts and policy makers both think and interact regarding these issues. We plan to measure this through a number of other affiliated projects in the future. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Major activitiesincluded: the formulation of a new 'transboundary' disease risk working group in MN; a two stage expert elicitation survey using the Delphi process, a decision matrix to be made available to policy makers in the State of MN; and a new case study methodology to be included in a new set of international disease risk analysis guidelines. Specifically- 1) This proposal helped facilitate the creation of an ecosystem health team in Minnesota with inclusion of experts from a varety of wildlife disciplines, as well as those from governtment and industry. This group included comprehensive coverage of wildlife, including aqautics, and the most important economic industries in MN, as well as relevant State Government experts. 2) Rather than a static list of prioritized diseases, the end product is a flexible decision matrix tool that guides priorization of potential pathogens at the wildlife-livestock interface based upon broad input from the MN community. 3) The Delphi approach used for expert elicitation creates a model for engaging a wide variety of experts, taking advantage of their expertise and knowledge through an iterative process of engagment. This example will be incorporated into the new joint OIE-IUCN guidleines for disease risk assessment at the wildlife-livestock interface and shared/trained internationally through both global networks. The results will be presented and published in a number of venues such as professional conferences, peer reviewed literature, Minnesota health policy lay publications, and encorparoted as a case study in the OIE-IUCN international guidelines. Thus, we have accomplished a change in knowledge, both in results and methodology, for scientists and policy makers, as well as trainees in the future. We are hopeful that this will result in a change in action of how MN policy makers engage and make decisions concerning diseases which include wildlife in their ecology. Finally, the creation and utilization of a broad variety of experts has a chance of changing the condition of how both experts and policy makers both think and interact regarding these issues. We plan to measure this through a number of other affiliated projects in the future.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Chung J., Travis DA, et al. Using Delphi Method for the Creation of a Hazard Identification Tool to Prioritize Research Needs at the Wildlife-Agriculture Interface in MN
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Risk-Based Management of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus (VHSV-IVb) in Minnesota
Nicholas B. D. Phelps, Meggan E. Craft, Dominic Travis, Katharine Pelican,
and Sagar M. Goyal. RISK-BASED MANAGEMENT OF VIRAL HEMORRHAGIC SEPTICEMIA VIRUS (VHSV-IVb) IN MINNESOTA
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Under Review
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Travis DA, Chung, J et al. The Creation of a Hazard Identification Tool to Prioritize Research Needs at the Wildlife-Agriculture Interface in MN
|