Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jun 21:5:137.
doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00137. eCollection 2018.

Modeling Dynamic Human Behavioral Changes in Animal Disease Models: Challenges and Opportunities for Addressing Bias

Affiliations
Review

Modeling Dynamic Human Behavioral Changes in Animal Disease Models: Challenges and Opportunities for Addressing Bias

Arata Hidano et al. Front Vet Sci. .

Abstract

Over the past several decades, infectious disease modeling has become an essential tool for creating counterfactual scenarios that allow the effectiveness of different disease control policies to be evaluated prior to implementation in the real world. For livestock diseases, these models have become increasingly sophisticated as researchers have gained access to rich national livestock traceability databases, which enables inclusion of explicit spatial and temporal patterns in animal movements through network-based approaches. However, there are still many limitations in how we currently model animal disease dynamics. Critical among these is that many models make the assumption that human behaviors remain constant over time. As many studies have shown, livestock owners change their behaviors around trading, on-farm biosecurity, and disease management in response to complex factors such as increased awareness of disease risks, pressure to conform with social expectations, and the direct imposition of new national animal health regulations; all of which may significantly influence how a disease spreads within and between farms. Failing to account for these dynamics may produce a substantial layer of bias in infectious disease models, yet surprisingly little is currently known about the effects on model inferences. Here, we review the growing evidence on why these assumptions matter. We summarize the current knowledge about farmers' behavioral change in on-farm biosecurity and livestock trading practices and highlight the knowledge gaps that prohibit these behavioral changes from being incorporated into disease modeling frameworks. We suggest this knowledge gap can be filled only by more empirical longitudinal studies on farmers' behavioral change as well as theoretical modeling studies that can help to identify human behavioral changes that are important in disease transmission dynamics. Moreover, we contend it is time to shift our research approach: from modeling a single disease to modeling interactions between multiple diseases and from modeling a single farmer behavior to modeling interdependencies between multiple behaviors. In order to solve these challenges, there is a strong need for interdisciplinary collaboration across a wide range of fields including animal health, epidemiology, sociology, and animal welfare.

Keywords: behavioral change; feedback loop; human behavior; infectious disease model; livestock disease; network analysis; psychological and economic model; qualitative study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic diagram of the feedback loop between disease and behavior. Disease influences farmer behaviors through prevalence-based and belief-based factors, which are influenced by various farms' and farmers' characteristics (e.g., demographic factors, socio-economic status, and social network with other actors). Behavior in turn changes disease dynamics. Farms' and farmers' characteristics influence both disease and behavior, which also influence farms' and farmers' characteristics. We highlighted two key areas (Q1 and Q2) that need further studies in order to accurately capture the inter-relationships between disease and dynamic human behaviors.

References

    1. Pomeroy LW, Bansal S, Tildesley M, Moreno-Torres KI, Moritz M, Xiao N, et al. . Data-driven models of foot-and-mouth disease dynamics: a review. Transbound Emerg Dis. (2017) 64:716–28. 10.1111/tbed.12437 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Keeling MJ. Models of foot-and-mouth disease. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. (2005) 272:1195–202. 10.1098/rspb.2004.3046 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Probert WJM, Shea K, Fonnesbeck CJ, Runge MC, Carpenter TE, Dürr S, et al. . Decision-making for foot-and-mouth disease control: objectives matter. Epidemics (2016) 15:10–9. 10.1016/j.epidem.2015.11.002 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferguson N. Capturing human behaviour. Nature (2007) 446:733. 10.1038/446733a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barnes AP, Moxey AP, Vosough Ahmadi B, Borthwick FA. The effect of animal health compensation on “positive” behaviours towards exotic disease reporting and implementing biosecurity: A review, a synthesis and a research agenda. Prev Vet Med. (2015) 122:42–52. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.09.003 - DOI - PubMed