Quantifying the beliefs of key players in the UK sheep industry on the efficacy of two treatments for footrot

Clinical trials have demonstrated that sheep with footrot treated with parenteral and topical antibiotics without foot trimming (treatment A), cure faster than sheep treated with foot trimming and topical antibiotics (treatment B). We investigated how key players in the UK sheep industry recommended treating footrot, and tested whether reviewing the evidence surrounding treatment of footrot changed their beliefs. Eight key players attended a workshop to investigate their current practices, and their perceived efficacy of treatments, using probabilistic elicitation. At the start of the study, all participants recommended use of antibiotic injection but only four recommended not foot trimming feet with footrot. Initial beliefs in the difference in cure rate within five days of treatment ranged from 30 to 97% in favour of treatment A (true difference 60%); this heterogeneity reduced after reviewing the evidence. Participants who believed the cure rate differed by >60% over-estimated the cure rate of treatment A whilst participants who believed the difference was <60% over-estimated the efficacy of treatment B. During discussions, participants stated that parenteral antibiotics had always been recommended as a treatment for footrot but that the new research clarified when to use them. In contrast, it was highly novel to hear that foot trimming was detrimental to recovery, and key players and farmers are taking longer to accept this evidence. Three months after the workshop, two participants stated that they now placed greater emphasis on rapid individual antibiotic treatment of lame sheep and one was no longer recommending trimming feet.