Chinese poultry farmers' decision‐making for avian influenza prevention: a qualitative analysis

Abstract

Poultry farmers faced dual risk when mutant avian influenza (AI) virus showed the zoonotic characteristics. A/H5N1 and A/H7N9 were two dominant AI virus strains that have captured the attention of the public over the years for they have been reported to bring about greater loss to poultry and human, respectively. Previous studies mainly used quantitative methods investigating either the means that poultry farmers adopted for protecting their poultry against A/H5N1 infection or the poultry farmers' self‐protective behaviours against A/H7N9 infection. We sought insights into the underlying factors influencing Chinese poultry farmers' protective behaviours in response to the dual risk of AI by a qualitative way. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted with 25 Chinese chicken farmers recruited by purposive sampling between November 2016 and May 2017, the peak season of AI. All interviews were audio‐taped, transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. From participants' experiences, we revealed five main themes: Measures adopted for protecting poultry and farmers, Emotional response to the AI epidemic, Perceived risk of AI, Perceived effectiveness of the preventive measures adopted and Perceived self‐efficacy to take preventive measures. The information of AI outbreak directly triggered Chinese chicken farmers' emotional response and thereafter preventive actions. Compared to the perceived risk of poultry infection with A/H5N1 which mainly connected to economic loss, participants perceived much lower risk of human infection with A/H7N9. AI epidemic information played a key role triggering poultry farmers' response behaviours. Chinese poultry farmers weighted more attention on the risk of poultry infection which was highly associated with economic losses. The government should build and improve an early AI warning and information transmission network to poultry farmers. Further reinforcement of related self‐protective and preventive knowledge training towards poultry farmers is necessary.

Perception-based influence factors of intention to adopt COVID-19 epidemic prevention in China

“…To begin with, the previous studies fundamentally focussed on the prevention and control of diseases such as Malaria, AIDS, 1 West Nile, Dengue, Zika, and Chikungunya ( Cui et al, 2019 ; Omodior et al, 2018 ; Przybyla et al, 2019 ; Raude et al, 2019 ; Xiaoliang et al, 2016 ). The first group of researches focussed on the epidemiology of diseases like Malaria, Dengue, and AIDS ( Bryant-davis et al, 2016 ; Cui et al, 2019 ). The second group of researches was based on surveys and their interpretation through the response rate of certain variables on epidemic prevention ( Baghbanzadeh et al, 2020 ; Sued et al, 2016 ).…”

Factors influencing the epidemiology of avian influenza virus circulation on poultry farms in Bangladesh

“…We identified that the availability information on HPAI played an important role in the farmers' decision-making to implement HPAI prevention and control measures for all three chicken production systems. Similarly, Toma, Stott, Heffernan, Ringrose, and Gunn (2013) found that the provision of biosecurity information had a positive impact on farmers' biosecurity behaviour while Cui et al (2019b) also observed that information on AI disseminated through TV, web news and chats and via conversations between chicken farmers influenced the implementation of HPAI preventive measures. Unfortunately, farmers with different levels of intensification are often provided with similar advice on disease management.…”

“…Different studies highlighted that the likelihood of implementing AI prevention and control measures is depended on farmer's perception on the susceptibility of birds to AIV infection, the consequences of the disease, the benefits of implementing actions, any constraints or barriers to the implementation of those actions and sources of information that may influence individuals' perceptions (Cui, Liu, Ke, & Tian, 2019a;Cui, Wang, Ke, & Tian, 2019b;Glanz & Bishop, 2010;Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008;Høg et al, 2018;Rimi et al, 2017). These factors towards the implementation of AI prevention and control measures will likely differ between backyard, commercial broiler, and commercial layer farmers, as farm management practices, production cycles, flock sizes as well level of education of flock owners differ between these three production systems (Cui, Liao, Lam, Liu, & Fielding, 2017;Cui & Liu, 2016;Jemberu et al, 2015).…”

“…The study also highlighted that farmers were less familiar with AIV infection in humans compared to chicken. In addition, biosecurity preventive behaviours and personal protective behaviours have been shown to be positively associated with farm size and farmers' perceived risks of both human and chicken infection (Cui et al, 2019b). Similar findings on risk perception were observed in backyard poultry farmers in Bangladesh (Sultana et al, 2012), where backyard poultry farmers perceived that AIV could transmit from poultry to poultry, but not from poultry to humans resulting in some risky behaviour practiced by the farmers, for example, keeping sick poultry under the bed and slaughter and consumption of sick poultry.…”

“…Qualitative and semi-quantitative methods can be used to provide insights into farmers' perceptions of and the factors influencing their attitudes towards biosecurity measures (Cui & Liu, 2016;Cui et al, 2019b;Oliveira et al, 2018). For example, Knowledge Attitudes and Practices (KAP) approaches have been used to describe knowledge, attitudes and and practices of farmers towards HPAI (Ismail & Ahmed, 2010;Sarker, Sumon, Khan, & Islam, 2016;Xiang et al, 2010;Zhou et al, 2019), but these type of studies do not fully consider the integrated nature of farmer's perceptions and its influence on farmers' behaviours.…”