Skip to main content

Eliciting expert opinion on the effectiveness and practicality of interventions in the farm and rural environment to reduce human exposure to Escherichia coli O157

  • P. CROSS (a1), D. RIGBY (a2) and G. EDWARDS-JONES (a1)

Few hard data are available on emergent diseases. However, the need to mitigate and manage emergent diseases has prompted the use of various expert consultation and opinion elicitation methods. We adapted best-worst scaling (BWS) to elicit experts' assessment of the relative practicality and effectiveness of measures to reduce human exposure to E. coli O157. Cattle vaccination was considered the most effective and hand-washing was considered the most practical measure. BWS proved a powerful tool for expert elicitation as it breaks down a cognitively burdensome process into simple, repeated, tasks. In addition, statistical analysis of the resulting data provides a scaled set of scores for the measures, rather than just a ranking. The use of two criteria (practicality and effectiveness) within the BWS process allows the identification of subsets of measures judged as potentially performing well on both criteria, and conversely those judged to be neither effective nor practical.

Corresponding author
*Author for correspondence: Dr P. Cross, School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK. (Email:
Hide All
1.Woolhouse M, Gaunt E. Ecological origins of novel human pathogens. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 2007; 33: 231242.
2.Morgan D, et al. Assessing the risk from emerging infections. Epidemiology and Infection 2009; 137: 15211530.
3.Tauxe RV. Emerging foodborne pathogens. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2002; 78: 3141.
4.Henson S. Estimating the incidence of food-borne Salmonella and the effectiveness of alternative control measures using the Delphi method. International Journal of Food Microbiology 1997; 35: 195204.
5.Fish R, et al. Unruly pathogens: eliciting values for environmental risk in the context of heterogeneous expert knowledge. Environmental Science & Policy 2009; 12: 281296.
6.van Schaik G, et al. Adaptive conjoint analysis to determine perceived risk factors of farmers, veterinarians and AI technicians for introduction of BHV1 to dairy farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 1998; 37: 101112.
7.Sørensen JT, et al. Expert opinions of strategies for milk fever control. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2002; 55: 6978.
8.Garabed RB, et al. Use of expert opinion for animal disease decisions: an example of foot-and-mouth disease status designation. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2009; 92: 2030.
9.Valeeva NI, et al. Improving food safety at the dairy farm level: farmers' and experts' perceptions. Review of Agricultural Economics 2005; 27: 574592.
10.Cross P, Williams P, Edwards-Jones G. Differences in the perceptions of farmers and veterinary surgeons about the efficacy of mitigation strategies for controlling bluetongue. Veterinary Record 2009; 165: 397403.
11.Valeeva NI, et al. Improving food safety within the dairy chain: an application of conjoint analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 2005; 88: 16011612.
12.Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. Madison, USA: Research Publishers, 2006.
13.Mennecke BE, et al. A study of the factors that influence consumer attitudes toward beef products using the conjoint market analysis tool. Journal of Animal Science 2007; 85: 26392659.
14.Coltman T, Devinney T, Keating B. Best-worst scaling approach to predict customer choice for 3PL services. Journal of Business Logistics 2010; 32: 139152.
15.Riley LW, et al. Hemorrhagic colitis associated with a rare Escherichia coli serotype. New England Journal of Medicine 1983; 308: 681685.
16.Bell BP, et al. A multistate uutbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7-associated bloody diarrhea and hemolytic uremic syndrome from hamburgers: the Washington experience. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 272: 13491353.
17.Kassenborg HD, et al. Farm visits and undercooked hamburgers as major risk factors for sporadic Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection: data from a case-control study in 5 FoodNet Sites. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004; 38 (s3): S271S278.
18.Locking ME, et al. Risk factors for sporadic cases of Escherichia coli O157 infection: the importance of contact with animal excreta. Epidemiology and Infection 2001; 127: 215220.
19.O'Brien S, Adak G, Gilham C. Contact with the farming environment as a major risk factor for sporadic cases of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli O157 infection in humans. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2001; 7: 10491051.
20.Parry SM, et al. Risk factors for and prevention of sporadic infections with vero cytotoxin (shiga toxin) producing Escherichia coli O157. Lancet 1998; 351: 10191022.
21.Ogden ID, et al. Long-term survival of Escherichia coli O157 on pasture following an outbreak associated with sheep at a scout camp. Letters in Applied Microbiology 2002; 34: 100104.
22.Ogden ID, MacRae M, Strachan N. Is the prevalence and shedding concentrations of E. coli O157 in beef cattle in Scotland seasonal? FEMS Microbiology Letters 2004; 233: 297300.
23.Khanna R, et al. Environmental prevention of human disease from verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008; 23: 18191822.
24.Solecki O, et al. Can the high levels of human verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157 infection in rural areas of NE Scotland be explained by consumption of contaminated meat? Journal of Applied Microbiology 2007; 103: 26162621.
25.Griffin G. Review of the major outbreak of E. coli O157 in Surrey, 2009. Report of the Independent Investigation Committee, June 2010 (
26.Lynch MF, Tauxe RV, Hedberg CW. The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology and Infection 2009; 137 (Special Issue 3): 307315.
27.Newell DG, et al. Food-borne diseases – the challenges of 20 years ago still persist while new ones continue to emerge. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2010; 139 (Suppl. 1): S3–S15.
28.Auger P, Devinney T, Louviere J. Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. Journal of Business Ethics 2007; 70: 299326.
29.Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2005; 49: 464480.
30.Lusk JL, Briggeman BC. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009; 91: 184196.
31.Jaeger SR, et al. Best-worst scaling: an introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Quality and Preference 2008; 19: 579588.
32.Lee JA, Soutar GN, Louviere J. Measuring values using best-worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychology and Marketing 2007; 24: 10431058.
33.McFadden D (ed.). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
34.McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000; 15: 447470.
35.Train K. Discrete Choice Methods and Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
36.Rigby D, Balcombe K, Burton M. Distributional assumptions and mixed logit model performance: preferences and GM foods. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009; 42: 211226.
37.Ellis-Iversen J, et al. Farm practices to control E. coli O157 in young cattle – a randomised controlled trial. Veterinary Research 2008; 39: 3.
38.Weimer-Jehle W. Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2006; 73: 334361.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Epidemiology & Infection
  • ISSN: 0950-2688
  • EISSN: 1469-4409
  • URL: /core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 152 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.