Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I believe it should not be the own vet that does the coaching, because he or she is not independent or is not seen as independent. I even think that is does not have to be a vet. In our project with antibiotic reduction we work with certified coaches they coach on the proces in the management team, the experts: farmer, veterinarian and advisors have to make a plan to do the technical intervention.The coach is there to reflect and guide the process and sometimes work on certain behaviour change.
Some of our veterinary practices in the Netherlands followed coaching sessions with our coached to do the coaching themselve, so it can work and I understand that it is not for everybody feasible to hire an external coach. But I also think that not everyone is made to coach, you need certain skills for that.
Well that is a hard question to answer, I can only reply from my experience. First of all it is not cheap, the project I am in we funded it by a subsidised project. And some farmers continued the coaching on their own cost, but most of the time the farmer sees the value in a broader perspective and it does not focus on a certain subject but is used as a tool for multiple issues. Hereby the coaches are most of the time payed by the hour.
What we also see is that certain concepts in the pig production as a group hire a coach or make it obligatory to have a certain trajectory with a coach most of the time those examples the farmers pay one amount and get a certain amount of coaching sessions. We never did economic research to see what the economic benefits at the end are.In behavioural model, both intrinsic motivations to change behaviour and external conditions that help determine whether an intended behaviour can (and should) actually be performed are important. The background to this is that interventions and incentives to change behaviour can only be effective if they match the reasons for not carrying out a certain behaviour.
Intrinsic drivers include attitudes towards biosecurity measures, sensitivity to social pressure, perceived behavioural control and capacity (will I keep animal health under control if I follow the biosecurity protocols for my animals?) and risk attitudes and perceptions. External conditions are ‘outside’ characteristics beyond the person’s control such as, for example, laws and regulations, external markets and available knowledge. Also veterinarians or feed suppliers or other farmyard providers can be understood as ‘external factors’ because their attitudes and advice on biosecurity measures can influence the decisions the livestock farmer makes about his actions
it is good to make a stakeholder and influence mapping of a certain farm, and every farm has his/her own stakeholders mapping. From that perspective it is important to decide who has influence on what. And it is the role of the coach to have insights in these processes and is able to reflect and influence the process.
And in Belgium and France it is indeed necessary to have the technician of the organisation that visits the farm regularly, join the ‘triangle’. Because it is most of the time more than 3 persons I speak of the managementteam.Yes ofcourse, important is that you have those stakeholders at the table that have influence on the process of farming, farmmanagement. And also if there are persons that have an influence on the behaviour of the farmer (familymembers, colleague farmers), than it can be interesting to let them join the ‘triangle’. Maybe not all the time but it can help.
A coach focusses more on proces, and the ‘experts’ the triangle have to come up with the answers, wereas an advisor in most of the situation also had an role as expert and focusses less on proces
Kok et al. 2016 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26262912/) wrote an article about: A taxonomy of behavior Change Methods; an intervention mapping approach. In my research we used yhe Intervention mapping approach and developed a tool box with practical application to be used by the coaches for changing, working on specific behaviour. But it is a really extensive and thoroughly proces to go through. So there is no obvious answer to that question.
Besides that if you talk about motivation there is intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. It is a proces to understand, what is happening, who have influence and what is the best approach in this case. All farms have their own unique social and physical context in which to operate. Interventions must fit in with these situations.There are different methodolody used for this kind off aproaches. I am familiar with the ADKAR model, in my research I work with Intervention Mapping (Bartholomew 1998), or behaviour Change wheel COM-B-model (Michie et al 2011) is also known.
Metholody of behaviour models:
We always work with the ‘triangle’ but there are very different behaviour models that are used in veterinarian science.
The starting point is an integral behavioural model that captures both intrinsic drivers (of farmers, veterinarians, feed suppliers and other actors involved) to work on biosecurity or antimicrobial use or other ‘problems’ and external conditions that help determine whether an intended behaviour can actually be implemented. Intrinsic drivers include attitudes towards for example reducing antibiotic use, sensitivity to social pressure, perceived behavioural control and capacity (will I keep animal health under control if I no longer use antibiotics for my animals?) and risk attitudes and perceptions. External conditions are ‘outside’ characteristics beyond the person’s control such as, for example, laws and regulations, external markets and available knowledge. Also veterinarians or feed suppliers or other farmyard providers can be understood as ‘external factors’ because their attitudes and advice on antibiotic use can influence the decisions the livestock farmer makes about this.
Structural joint consultations with farmer, veterinarian and feed consultant are still far from a given in every sector. While good communication, proper coordination, making agreements and sharing common interests form the basis for optimal management and achieving results.
In the coaching process, an external coach joins the management team on the farm. The basis of this team is the farmer, veterinarian and feed advisor, possibly supplemented by employees and/or other farm workers. The aim of the coaching process is to strengthen the triangle on the farm and to start working in a structured way on the set objective.
Using the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology, the management team will set goals and execute actions under the coach’s guidance. In subsequent meetings, the actions are evaluated and adjusted if necessary.E-learning: Get started with your Multi-Actor Farm Health Team
The basis is the ‘triangle at the table’ the farmer, veterinarian and (feed) advisor. But actually everyone involved in achieving the goal should be involved in the coaching. Think of employees, hygiene specialists, etc.
It is not always easy and it cost time to adress certain problems with farmers, it starts with that the farmer has the motivation to change and acknowledges that there is a problem. So starting talking about biosecurity does not help, and in most cases a coach can have a session with the farmer and the ‘triangle’ (veterinarian, feedadvisor), and look at the management of the total farm, do not start with focussing on the biosecurity. And what is important is to know for what en who the farmer is susceptible to listen to.
In the literature there is a lot of information that use different behaviour models to change the behaviour of farmer. And an important point is that whatever the intervention, tailoring is always important.
In all interventions, customisation is the key word. All farms have their own unique social and physical context in which to operate. Interventions need to fit in with this, if it is social, technical or other interventions.The coach is there to mirror, evaluate progress and strengthen cooperation. And plays a role in that each adivsor can ‘safely’ provide input. The coach tries to create an open-minded setting. In principle, he/she will not interfere in the content of what is discussed, but will mirror and guide the process and ensure that the triangle functions optimally. This implies that the coach ensures that each of the experts at the table comes into his own and has his say.
Challenging and supporting people to identify, concretize and realize their learning or development goals”
“Form of counseling in which the coach both challenges and supports the client in a developmental processCoaching is a way to achieve results but not the only way. In antimicrobial use we saw in the first years that by giving farmers knowledge, good examples, technical interventions we achieved a lot, there was not always direct coaching involved to achieve these results. But it definetly can help but is also not for every farm a solution. So coaching can help to strengthen the managementteam, the people that have the most influence on the farm. Also dependent on if you have an independent coach or someone from the managementteam is the coach, preferable it is someone form ‘outside’. What the coach can do is start working on the managementteam, and when there is trust and responsibility in the managememt team it should be easier to make the technical interventions that are possible needed. The key is that every person in the management team takes his/hers responsibility and that there is trust to address issues and the agreements that are made. If coaching works than you can achieve different issues in farming, as in improving farm animal health, improve biosecurity and disease prevention, reduction antimicrobial use. But as sad before it is a tool, and the motivation of the farmer and management team is of great importance. In projects on antimicroibial use we see promising results, but also farms were we do not see any reduction. And often the issue is that there are multiple problems on a farm or government legislation that give insecurity, that focussing on just 1 issue is really difficult. And it is expensive to have a coach on the farm so in the ultimate situation you would want coaches regurlarely on farms but because of finance that is just not possible.
It is not always easy and it cost time to adress certain problems with farmers, it starts with that the farmer has the motivation to change and acknowledges that there is a problem. So starting talking about biosecurity does not help, and in most cases a coach can have a session with the farmer and the ‘triangle’ (veterinarian, feedadvisor), and look at the management of the total farm, do not start with focussing on the biosecurity. And what is important is to know for what en who the farmer is susceptible to listen to.
In the literature there is a lot of information that use different behaviour models to change the behaviour of farmer. And an important point is that whatever the intervention, tailoring is always important.
In all interventions, customisation is the key word. All farms have their own unique social and physical context in which to operate. Interventions need to fit in with this, if it is social, technical or other interventions.
