↓ Skip to main content

Bovine Tuberculosis Management in Northwest Minnesota and Implications of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) Model for Wildlife Disease Management

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bovine Tuberculosis Management in Northwest Minnesota and Implications of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) Model for Wildlife Disease Management
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Cross, Alex Heeren, Louis J. Cornicelli, David C. Fulton

Abstract

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an infectious, zoonotic disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis that can spread between domestic and wild animals, as well as to humans. The disease is characterized by the progressive development of lesions that compromise the victim's lungs and lymph system. The disease was first identified in northwest Minnesota in both cattle and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in 2005. Due to its risks to human and animal health, bTB has numerous implications related to population management, policy outcomes, stakeholder relations, and economic impacts. When dealing with complicated risks, like bTB, individuals often seek out and process information as a method to learn about, and cope, with the risk. We developed a questionnaire that adapted components of the Risk Information Seeking and Processing (RISP) model and surveyed northwest Minnesota deer hunters. Our objectives were to better understand how stakeholders perceive and act on information regarding disease management in wildlife and to understand the utility of the RISP model for such management contexts. We drew a random proportional sample of licensed deer hunters (n = 2100) from the area affected by bTB and conducted a multi-contact mail survey. We found that 43% of the variability in the information-seeking behaviors of respondents was explained by demographics, hunting importance, personal risk perceptions, attitudes, and subjective norms. However, these results are largely attributable to the factors in the RISP model encompassed by components of the Theory of Planned Behavior (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions). This information can help managers contextualize individuals' perceived risks to better frame communication efforts to address stakeholder concerns and develop best practices for disease communication. While the state of Minnesota is currently considered free of bTB, future outbreaks remain possible in Minnesota and elsewhere. Understanding the key factors in the processes through which deer hunters seek out information pertaining to the disease can help managers collect the data necessary to aid decisions about desired future management outcomes. In addition, testing RISP model performance in applied research improves its future use across a broad spectrum of topics throughout veterinary disease management.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 4 8%
Professor 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 22%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 18 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,969,340
of 23,659,844 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,997
of 6,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,532
of 334,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#45
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,659,844 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.