Understanding Farmers' Behavior and Their Decision-Making Process in the Context of Cattle Diseases: A Review of Theories and Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding farmers' behavior regarding disease control is essential to successfully implement behavior change interventions that improve uptake of best practices. A literature review was conducted to identify theoretical underpinnings, analytical methodologies, and key behavioral determinants that have been described to understand farmers' behavior in disease control and prevention on cattle farms. Overall, 166 peer-reviewed manuscripts from studies conducted in 27 countries were identified. In the past decade, there were increasing reports on farmers' motivators and barriers, but no indication of application of appropriate social science methods. Furthermore, the majority (58%) of reviewed studies lacked a theoretical framework in their study design. However, when a theoretical underpinning was applied, the Theory of Planned Behavior was most commonly used (14% of total). The complexity of factors impacting farmers' behavior was illustrated when mapping all described key constructs of the reviewed papers in behavior change frameworks, such as the socioecological framework and the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model. Constructs related to personal influences and relationships between farmers and veterinarians were overrepresented, whereas constructs related to other interpersonal and contextual environments were not extensively studied. There was a general lack of use of validated scales to measure constructs and empirically validated theoretical frameworks to understand and predict farmers' behavior. Furthermore, studies mainly focused on measurements of intention of stakeholder behavior rather than actual behavior, although the former is a poor predictor of the latter. Finally, there is still a lack of robust evidence of behavior change interventions or techniques that result in a successful change in farmers' behavior. We concluded that for a sustainable behavior change, studies should include wider constructs at individual, interpersonal, and contextual levels. Furthermore, the use of empirically validated constructs and theoretical frameworks is encouraged. By using coherent frameworks, researchers could link constructs to design interventions, and thereby take the first step toward theory-driven, evidence-based interventions to influence farmers' behavior for disease control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".