IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in commercial Australian poultry operations using an expert opinion elicitation

Author

Listed:
  • Mini Singh
  • Jenny-Ann Toribio
  • Angela Bullanday Scott
  • Peter Groves
  • Belinda Barnes
  • Kathryn Glass
  • Barbara Moloney
  • Amanda Black
  • Marta Hernandez-Jover

Abstract

The objective of this study was to elicit experts’ opinions and gather estimates on the perceived probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in the Australian broiler and layer industry. Using a modified Delphi method and a 4-step elicitation process, 11 experts were asked to give initial individual estimates for the various pathways and practices in the presented scenarios using a questionnaire. Following this, a workshop was conducted to present group averages of estimates and discussion was facilitated to obtain final individual estimates. For each question, estimates for all experts were combined using a discrete distribution, with weights allocated representing the level of expertise. Indirect contact with wild birds either via a contaminated water source or fomites was considered the most likely pathway of introduction of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) on poultry farms. Presence of a water body near the poultry farm was considered a potential pathway for introduction only when the operation type was free range and the water body was within 500m distance from the shed. The probability that LPAI will mutate to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) was considered to be higher in layer farms. Shared personnel, equipment and aerosol dispersion were the most likely pathways of shed to shed spread of the virus. For LPAI and HPAI spread from farm to farm, shared pick-up trucks for broiler and shared egg trays and egg pallets for layer farms were considered the most likely pathways. Findings from this study provide an insight on most influential practices on the introduction and spread of AI virus among commercial poultry farms in Australia, as elicited from opinions of experts. These findings will be used to support parameterization of a modelling study assessing the risk of AI introduction and spread among commercial poultry farms in Australia.

Suggested Citation

  • Mini Singh & Jenny-Ann Toribio & Angela Bullanday Scott & Peter Groves & Belinda Barnes & Kathryn Glass & Barbara Moloney & Amanda Black & Marta Hernandez-Jover, 2018. "Assessing the probability of introduction and spread of avian influenza (AI) virus in commercial Australian poultry operations using an expert opinion elicitation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193730
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193730
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193730&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193730?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Speirs‐Bridge & Fiona Fidler & Marissa McBride & Louisa Flander & Geoff Cumming & Mark Burgman, 2010. "Reducing Overconfidence in the Interval Judgments of Experts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 512-523, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    2. Yizhong Huan & Lingqing Wang & Mark Burgman & Haitao Li & Yurong Yu & Jianpeng Zhang & Tao Liang, 2022. "A multi‐perspective composite assessment framework for prioritizing targets of sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 833-847, October.
    3. Laura M. Keating & Lea Randall & Rebecca Stanton & Casey McCormack & Michael Lucid & Travis Seaborn & Sarah J. Converse & Stefano Canessa & Axel Moehrenschlager, 2023. "Using Decision Analysis to Determine the Feasibility of a Conservation Translocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 295-310, December.
    4. Daniela Di Cagno & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Measuring and Disentangling Ambiguity and Confidence in the Lab," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    6. Timothy McDaniels & Tamsin Mills & Robin Gregory & Dan Ohlson, 2012. "Using Expert Judgments to Explore Robust Alternatives for Forest Management under Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2098-2112, December.
    7. Solveig Höfer & Alex Ziemba & Ghada El Serafy, 2020. "A Bayesian approach to ecosystem service trade-off analysis utilizing expert knowledge," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 67-83, March.
    8. Mark C. Quigley & Luke G. Bennetts & Patricia Durance & Petra M. Kuhnert & Mark D. Lindsay & Keith G. Pembleton & Melanie E. Roberts & Christopher J. White, 2019. "The provision and utility of earth science to decision-makers: synthesis and key findings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 349-367, September.
    9. Hatswell, David Todd & Ramiah, Vikash & Wallace, Damien & Krishna, P.P. Nithi & Muschert, Glenn & Biju, A.V. Nair & Reddy, Krishna, 2024. "The influence of trauma insurance on quality of life among cancer survivors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    10. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:783-797 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Robin Gregory & Theresa Satterfield & David R. Boyd, 2020. "People, Pipelines, and Probabilities: Clarifying Significance and Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 218-226, February.
    13. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    14. David R. Mandel & Robert N. Collins & Evan F. Risko & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2020. "Effect of confidence interval construction on judgment accuracy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 783-797, September.
    15. Simon Kloker & Tim Straub & Christof Weinhardt, 2019. "Moderators for Partition Dependence in Prediction Markets," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 723-756, August.
    16. Michael C. Runge & Clark S. Rushing & James E. Lyons & Madeleine A. Rubenstein, 2023. "A Simplified Method for Value of Information Using Constructed Scales," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 220-230, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.