Table 5 Socio-technical factors taken into account by farmers and veterinarians in their decision-making process
Factor | Reasons for reporting abortions1 | Reasons for not reporting abortions1 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Farmer | Relationships with veterinary services and the GDS | Â | Limited interactions |
| Â | Â | Â | Farmers did not feel responsible for early detection of brucellosis |
|  | Relationships with veterinarians | Trust in the veterinarian’s expertise (even though one farmer required further advice from the GDS) | No trust in the expertise of the sanitary veterinarian and consultation of another practitioner in the event of health problems |
| Â | Â | Explanations by the veterinarian of the advantages and limits of differential diagnosis | Difficulties due to the absence of consideration by veterinarians: for example, animal sales had been stopped for several weeks after a seropositive result obtained from a differential diagnosis about which the farmer had not been informed |
Veterinarians | Relationships with veterinary services and the GDS | Role of the sanitary veterinarian | Absence of a technical added-value |
| Â | Â | Â | Feeling of being under the supervision of veterinary services and the GDS |
| Â | Â | Â | Dissatisfaction with veterinary services including lack of information on surveillance results, lack of technical training, lack of discussion about their difficulties |
| Â | Technical network | Some veterinarians have their own expert network | Lack of technical support should they have difficulties in identifying the cause of abortion |
|  | Relationships with farmers |  | Blame farmers for not systematically consulting them in the event of abortion despite their messages to increase farmers’ awareness |
|  |  |  | Farmers’ expectations and difficulties taken into account: no differential diagnoses were performed on farms where animals were sold abroad or if technical difficulties in determining the cause of abortion were feared |