3.5 Risk analysis
A total 150 respondents answered this section, thus 70% of the
respondents produced risk assessments and used the available tools. The
Poisson model obtained (with the outcome being the Linkert coded score
and the explanatory variable being the type of risk assessment approach)
showed that the qualitative risk assessment approach was the one most
used followed by quantitative and semi-qualitative (Figure 8a) .
Quantitative and semi-qualitative risk assessment had no significant
difference between them. When asked about the type of risk assessment
they generally worked on, there was no difference among release,
exposure and consequence assessment. The Poisson model with the type of
risk assessments as the explanatory variable suggested absence of
significance for all the factors. The percentages in all the five
categories of the Linkert scale were similar for all the three types of
risk assessment (Figure 8b) . When asked which was the primary
objective of producing a risk assessment, in decreasing order of
frequency of the always category were: “ Risk assessment and
preparedness in areas involving origin and spread of animal diseases,
including zoonoses”, “Provide stakeholders with relevant information
and expert advice on issues related to disease preparedness and
surveillance of animal diseases and zoonoses”, “identify key questions
for targeted research”, “provide veterinary diagnostic laboratory
services for zoonotic, epizootic and other animal notifiable diseases”,
“evaluate the need for action to support policy changes”, “identify
plausible future scenarios to be prepared to future animal incursions”(Figure 8c) . The Poisson model applied to determine the primary
objective of respondents’ risk assessment suggested that the categories
“to identify key questions for targeted research”, “to provide
veterinary diagnostic laboratory services for zoonotic, epizootic and
other animal notifiable diseases” and “identify plausible future
scenarios to be prepared to future animal incursions” were of
significantly higher importance than the reference category “risk
assessment and preparedness in areas involving origin and spread of
animal diseases”. The other two primary objectives: “evaluate the need
for action to support policy changes”, and “provide stakeholders with
relevant information and expert advice on issues related to disease
preparedness and surveillance of animal diseases and zoonoses” were not
significant with regards to the reference category. Therefore, they had
the same importance of being the primary objective as risk assessment
and preparedness in areas involving origin and spread of animal
diseases.
A Poisson model was applied to study the most important feature required
by experts when using a risk analysis platform tool. Significance for
each category was suggested when using the category “Produce a risk
assessment for two diseases for comparison” as the reference category.
In decreasing order of importance: “spread assessment”, ” pathways of
introduction of a disease until the border”, “produce a quick risk
assessment”, “Produce a report using the system”, “Produce a risk
assessment detailed for a single disease”, “Produce a risk assessment
for two diseases for comparison”, with the reference category being the
least important (Figure 9).
To assess the risk of threat, 85% of the respondents used different
data sources and tools. To report a risk assessment result however, 67%
answered that they did not combine the outputs of several types of
methods.