» Articles » PMID: 36825234

A Review of Qualitative Risk Assessment in Animal Health: Suggestions for Best Practice

Overview
Journal Front Vet Sci
Date 2023 Feb 24
PMID 36825234
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Qualitative risk assessment (QRA) can provide decision support in line with the requirement for an objective, unbiased assessment of disease risk according to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade Organization. However, in order for a QRA to be objective and consistently applied it is necessary to standardize the approach as much as possible. This review considers how QRAs have historically been used for the benefit of animal health, what problems have been encountered during their progression, and considers best practice for their future use. Four main elements were identified as having been the subject of some proposed standard methodology: (i) the description of risk levels, (ii) combining probabilities, (iii) accounting for trade volume and time period, and (iv) uncertainty. These elements were addressed in different ways but were highlighted as being fundamental to improving the robustness in estimating the risk and conveying the results to the risk manager with minimal ambiguity. In line with this, several tools have been developed which attempt to use mathematical reasoning to incorporate uncertainty and improve the objectivity of the qualitative framework. This represents an important advance in animal health QRA. Overall, animal health QRAs have established their usefulness by providing a tool for rapid risk estimation which can be used to identify important chains of events and critical control points along risk pathways and inform risk management programmes as to whether or not the risk exceeds a decision-making threshold above which action should be taken. Ensuring a robust objective methodology is used and that the reasons for differences in results, such as assumptions and uncertainty are clearly described to the customer with minimal ambiguity is essential to maintain confidence in the QRA process. However, further work needs to be done to determine if one objective uniform methodology should be developed and considered best practice. To this end, a set of best practice guidelines presenting the optimal way to conduct a QRA and regulated by bodies such as the World Organization for Animal Health or the European Food Safety Authority would be beneficial.

Citing Articles

Risk scoring of African swine fever transmission in selected provinces of the Philippines.

Bernardo J, Serdena A, Pangga G, Salamat S, Agulto T, Fernandez-Colorado C J Vet Sci. 2025; 26(1):e2.

PMID: 39749378 PMC: 11799093. DOI: 10.4142/jvs.24149.


Revisiting the risk of introduction of Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) into the United States - An updated semi-quantitative risk assessment.

Dixon A, Oliveira A, Cohnstaedt L, Mitzel D, Mire C, Cernicchiaro N One Health. 2024; 19:100879.

PMID: 39253386 PMC: 11381889. DOI: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100879.


Laboratory testing and on-site storage are successful at mitigating the risk of release of foot-and-mouth disease virus via production of bull semen in the USA.

Meyer A, Weiker J, Meyer R PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0294036.

PMID: 37934775 PMC: 10629637. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294036.

References
1.
Paton D, Sinclair M, Rodriguez R . Qualitative assessment of the commodity risk for spread of foot-and-mouth disease associated with international trade in deboned beef. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2010; 57(3):115-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2010.01137.x. View

2.
Corbellini L, Pellegrini D, Dias R, Reckziegel A, Todeschini B, Bencke G . Risk assessment of the introduction of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza as a tool to be applied in prevention strategy plan. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2011; 59(2):106-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1865-1682.2011.01246.x. View

3.
Cabral M, Taylor R, de Vos C . Risk assessment of exotic disease incursion and spread. EFSA J. 2020; 17(Suppl 2):e170916. PMC: 7015500. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170916. View

4.
Coultous R, Sutton D, Boden L . A risk assessment of equine piroplasmosis entry, exposure and consequences in the UK. Equine Vet J. 2022; 55(2):282-294. PMC: 10083907. DOI: 10.1111/evj.13579. View

5.
Heller J, Kelly L, Reid S, Mellor D . Qualitative risk assessment of the acquisition of Meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in pet dogs. Risk Anal. 2010; 30(3):458-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01342.x. View