Stakeholders’ perspectives on communicating biosecurity to encourage behaviour change in farmers

Sebastián Moya Durán ^1* Kate Lamont ² Marnie L Brennan ¹ Alberto Allepuz ³ Lena-Mari Tamminen ⁴ Giovanna Ciaravino ³ Maria Rodrigues Da Costa ² Carla Correia-Gomes ⁵ Murat Dogusan ⁶ Teresa Imperial ³ Daniele De Meneghi ⁷ Ilias Chantziaras ⁸ Alison Burrell ⁵

• ¹ Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough, United Kingdom
• ² Centre for Epidemiology and Planetary Health, Scotland's Rural College, Inverness, United Kingdom
• ³ Departament de Sanitat i Anatomia Animals, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain
• ⁴ Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
• ⁵ Animal Health Ireland, Carrick-on-Shannon, Ireland
• ⁶ Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Türkiye
• ⁷ Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie, Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Italy
• ⁸ Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium

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 analysed 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 personalisation and coordination, and challenges and innovative solutions; ii) designing an optimal communication system to promote behavioural change in biosecurity: initial strategies for communication: knowledge and trust, integration of technological tools, mandatory programmes and coordinated campaigns, continuous training and collaborative learning, and incentives and certifications; and iii) measuring the success of biosecurity communication programmes: evaluation tools and audits, key indicators and benchmarking, measuring attitudes and behavioural changes, and participation and knowledge as additional evaluation metrics. The findings highlight the need for collaborative, personalised, and sustainable approaches to biosecurity communication. This study provides valuable insights to inform the development and implementation of communication programmes that remain effective over time.