


































41-Manuscript-497-1-11-20200612


Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 2, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Lauri M. Baker, Associate Professor, University of Florida 
PO Box 112060 Gainesville, FL 32611 
lauri.m.baker@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4241-6077 

2. Ashely N. McLeod-Morin, Communications Coordinator, UF/IFAS Center for Public Issues Education in Agriculture and 
Natural Resources, University of Florida 
1408 Sabal Palm Drive, 2nd Floor, PO Box 110320, Gainesville, FL 32611 
ashleynmcleod@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8649-9783 

3. Mariah Bausch, Graduate Student, Kansas State University 
1612 Claflin Road 301 Umberger Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-3402 
mebausch5@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7896-7586 

4. Angela B. Lindsey, Assistant Professor, University of Florida 
3014C McCarty D University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 
ablindsey@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9859-7962 

 
39 

 

Zoonotic disease communication networks of livestock 
producers, veterinarians, human health, professionals, and 

emergency managers 
L. Baker1, A. McLeod-Morin2, M. Bausch3

, A. Lindsey4 

 
 

 

Abstract 
Zoonotic disease epidemics are on the rise with emerging diseases being identified that affect 
humans and animals alike like the 2019/2020 COVID-19 pandemic. An understanding about 
communication networks of those involved in managing a zoonotic disease outbreak is necessary to 
develop a strong communication response in the event of a zoonotic disease outbreak. The purpose 
of this study was to explore the communication networks of livestock producers, veterinarians, 
human health professionals, and emergency managers related to zoonotic disease. In-depth 
interviews were conducted with 41 people within key areas of one state in an effort to understand 
how communication networks may be activated during a crisis. This study revealed a wide range of 
information sources that livestock producers, medical professionals, veterinarians, and emergency 
managers seek information from. The results from this study also highlight the communication gaps, 
such as veterinarians not communicating with livestock producers, emergency managers not 
communicating with medical professionals and livestock producers, and a lack of communication 
between medical professionals and livestock producers. It is recommended that professionals who 
play a key role in zoonotic disease outbreaks, such as livestock producers, veterinarians, human 
health professionals, and emergency managers, cultivate and maintain relationships outside their 
usual professional group beyond times of disease outbreaks.  
 
Keywords 
network map, in-depth interviews, qualitative social network analysis 
 
 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   40 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Zoonotic diseases pose a major threat to society as these are not commonly seen by producers 
or veterinarians (Moennig, 2000), which makes diagnoses and control of an outbreak difficult. 
The most effective way of controlling zoonotic diseases is through communication and 
education (Ashlock et al., 2009; Zinsstag et al., 2007), but gaps exist in what is known about 
communication networks and the information shared through these networks. Even when 
information is available, like on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) websites, getting to the information can be 
difficult (Baker et al., 2020). More research is needed related to zoonotic risk and 
communication (Decker et al., 2010) to better understand how communication would occur 
during a zoonotic disease outbreak. 
 
Zoonotic diseases make up about 60% of infectious diseases seen in humans (Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention One Health, n.d.); there are 196 emerging diseases that infect 
humans, livestock, and wildlife. Of these diseases, there are 15 deadly zoonotic diseases 
affecting humans (Gebreyes et al., 2014). In addition to health impacts, zoonotic diseases also 
pose a significant threat to the economy. The economic impact has several components that 
should be considered: the potential spread of a zoonotic diseases, the cost to livelihoods, risk 
management costs, and risk reduction (Narrod et al., 2012). According to Narrod et al. (2012), 
zoonotic diseases have an estimated cost of $20 billion to the global economy within the past 
decade affecting both industrialized and developing countries. 
 
Given the widespread impacts of zoonotic diseases, it is important to understand the avenues 
in which people seek information about zoonotic diseases to develop more effective 
communication strategies.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual framework of crisis communication and social networks guided this study. 
Crises happen in all industries and require a level of preparedness that allows for successful 
communication to help minimize the impact. Communication is the most important factor in 
crisis management (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Even the most effective crisis response cannot 
be effective if communication with the public is poor (Sell, 2017); but, communication alone will 
not be sufficient if trust is not in place prior to and during the crisis (Quinn et al., 2013). 
Timeliness and transparency help build audience trust (Irlbeck et al., 2013; Reynolds & Quinn, 
2008), and trust and credibility should be established with audience groups before a crisis 
occurs (Kolich, 2014). 
 
The concept of trust is often built through social networks. Social networks are the 
arrangements in which humans communicate, the messages sent and received, and with whom 
they are communicating. The information and resources people gather are influenced by their 
social network (Hawe & Ghali, 2008). These networks also have an impact on both crisis 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   41 
 

communication and education (Moolenaar & Daly, 2012). According to Moolenaar and Daly 
(2012), social networks can impact the ability to obtain quality information and take action 
during times of crisis. Research in health has revealed social networks inform people about 
disease control, affect people’s decision to seek mental health services (Mahajan & Meyer, 
2019), and affect cultural understanding of health issues within communities (Chaklader, 2018). 
An understanding of social networks is necessary to determine the implementation of 
innovation practices and how best to reach audience groups. Some previous work has looked at 
social networks of heath care professionals, veterinarians, and agricultural producers.  
 
Previous work from the University of Wisconsin identified the specific challenge of little 
communication between physicians and veterinarians. Physicians believed veterinarians should 
play a larger role in controlling, preventing, and providing information about zoonotic diseases 
(Grant & Olsen, 1999). But patients did not view veterinarians as a reference for zoonotic-
disease information. Recommendations from the study suggest greater communication is 
needed between physicians and veterinarians, physicians contacting state health departments 
for information, and more training and education for the two groups about risks and prevention 
(Grant & Olsen, 1999). Other studies have also identified the need for increased collaborations 
between veterinarians, physicians, public health professionals, and government organizations 
(Cripps 2000; Kahn, 2006; Lederberg, 2002). The lack of communication between key 
organizations has been identified as a hindrance in managing a disease outbreak (Kahn, 2006). 
 
Another study conducted in Oklahoma identified social networks of beef producers. Producers 
in this study sought information from their veterinarians and viewed them as the most trusted 
source for animal disease information (Ashlock et al., 2009). These producers also preferred 
information to be distributed by the county Extension departments followed by the internet. 
The internet was seen as a secondary source of information, but not seen as a highly trusted 
source compared with in-person communication (Ashlock et al., 2009).  
 
People use multiple social networks as information sources (Israel & Wilson, 2006). Some forms 
of information sources for agricultural audiences include publications, extension agents, online 
media, and peers (Breiner et al., 2007; Riley et al., 2012). Livestock producers in previous works 
identify their primary source of information comes from their veterinarians (Breiner et al., 
2007; Israel & Wilson, 2006; Riley et al., 2012). 
 

Purpose 
 
Given the impact and importance of communication within social networks, especially during 
times of a crisis, the purpose of this study was to explore the communication networks of 
livestock producers, veterinarians, human health professionals, and emergency managers 
related to zoonotic disease in an effort to understand how to best communicate with and 
prepare these audience groups for a potential zoonotic disease outbreak. The following 
research questions guided this study: What are audiences’ communication networks and 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   42 
 

related information sources for zoonotic disease?; and How are audiences’ communication 
networks connected? 
 

Methods 
 
Qualitative methodology was selected to answer the research questions because of its ability to 
learn about the participants’ experiences and understand patterns and explanations from the 
data (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This case study approach allowed researchers to develop a 
complete picture of communication networks within the state. Initial participants were 
recruited through purposive sampling through extension agents; purposive sampling is used 
when a study seeks to understand the experiences of one specific group (Creswell & Poth, 
2018). In the case of this study, researchers wanted to identify individuals within livestock 
producers, veterinarians, human health professionals, and emergency managers. Snowball 
sampling was used after initial interviews to find participants with specific insight to the county 
or processes that came up during the interview. Participants were asked, “Is there anyone else 
we should speak to regarding a zoonotic-disease outbreak?” For the social network analysis, 
questions were asked about who they sought information and advice from during a crisis and 
who they were connected to. A total of 40 interviews were conducted during the course of 
study. Interviews began during March of 2017 and went through July of 2018.  
 
Interviews were recorded and field notes were collected, creating an audit trail. Interviews 
were conducted and transcribed by a team of seven trained researchers. The method of using a 
team of interviewers has been seen in multiple studies (Britten, 1995; Jamshed, 2014; McNulty 
et al., 2017). Validity was established through member-checks, comparing interviewer and 
assistant interviewer notes, and transcriptions. Validity creates credibility and trustworthiness 
within a study (Creswell, 2014).  
 
Participants were asked a series of questions regarding information sources and social networks 
such as: Who are your most trusted sources of information about contagious animal diseases? 
What other organizations or publications are your most trusted sources? Who do you share 
information with? How do you share information with the public about zoonotic-disease 
outbreaks? Researchers followed up with probes to dig deeper into participants responses 
related to their communication networks and sources. 
 
All identifying information was removed and pseudonyms were assigned based on audience 
group. Those from the livestock producer category were given names that started with L, 
veterinarians were assigned V names, medical professionals assumed names beginning with M, 
and emergency management personnel had E names. Transcripts were imported into Nvivo 
software and analyzed for major and minor themes according to Glaser’s constant comparative 
method (1965). One primary coder analyzed all of the data looking for major themes and 
constantly comparing with previous themes to identify new themes as these arose in the data. 
Major themes were noted when all four audience groups were seen within a response theme 
and minor themes included three audience groups. Dissent was noted when participants were 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   43 
 

different in their thought processes than the overall themes identified in the study. For RQ2, a 
communication network map was developed through analyzing all 41 transcripts and making 
note of who people indicated they were communicating with, entities where they sought 
information from, and all other sources they relied on for this issue whether in-person or 
virtually. Then, notes were made on the direction of this communication. A communication 
map of these notes was created to represent all interactions people would have before or 
during a zoonotic disease outbreak, which is representative of the communication theory 
developed from this research. The first map included all of the networks described by 
participants as a true representation of all voices in the study. The researchers collapsed the 
data from the first map by consolidating groups of networks and sources together for the 
simplified communication map. Results were reviewed by note takers and secondary 
researchers to confirm the analysis and triangulate the data. 
 

Findings 
 
The findings are reported in this section by research questions and accompanied by visual 
representations of the data. Through the case study approach, the 40 in-depth interviews in 
this study were used to build a theory around how livestock producers, veterinarians, human 
health professionals, and emergency managers are connected through social networks during a 
zoonotic-disease outbreak. Findings are described around major themes. 
 
Audiences’ social networks and related information sources for zoonotic disease 
Major themes emerged of veterinarians and Kansas State University as sources of information 
and communication for all audiences. Minor themes included government agencies and state 
veterinarians playing a role in communicating and educating others about zoonotic-disease 
outbreaks. 
 
Veterinarians 
Veterinarians served as the main source of information, communication, and education 
regarding zoonotic-disease outbreaks for all audience groups in the study. Larson, a livestock 
producer, said, “Generally, talk with the local vets on that source. Have a couple of other 
people that I talk to about different things, but I would say, generally local vets.” Vale, a 
veterinarian said he would turn to the USDA trainings, the university, and his peers, “One of the 
probably most trusted sources I have is the USDA. We do...accreditation modules...to keep our 
status current as veterinarians...then the university and colleagues would come after that for 
me”. Mark, a medical professional would lean on his counterpart veterinarians, “Yeah, 
obviously would talk more to my veterinary med colleagues I would think of or animal science.” 
  
Kansas State University 
Another major theme was the Kansas State University veterinary school as a source of 
information for all audience groups. Veterinarian, Vincent, relied on university research, “I think 
the university information is, should be non-biased and backed up by good studies and good 
people.” Emmitt, an emergency manager described the different sources he would use 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   44 
 

depending on the type of disease outbreak, “If it’s a traditional communicable disease, our 
sources of information would be the health department or hospital. If it’s something zoonotic, 
it would be Kansas State University Vet Med.” Macy, a medical professional also distinguished a 
difference in sources of information related to the type of disease, “I don’t know if the CDC has 
anything that still would be a go to. And I would go to the vet school…I know they have 
infectious disease veterinarians.” 
 
Government Agencies 
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention served as a minor theme. Veterinarians, medical 
professionals, and emergency managers all access the CDC for information about zoonotic 
diseases. Vance, a veterinarian used several government agencies including the CDC, “The most 
trusted resource that we refer to is the USDA information. Whether that’s through the CDC or 
the Future NBAF [National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility].” Medical professional, Megan, 
turned to the CDC as her trusted source of information, “Well, CDC would be the most trusted 
one because they’re supposed to have all the pertinent information and they’re mandated to 
get that out to healthcare providers.” Evan, an emergency manager, relied on several 
government agencies to provide information including the CDC: 

Well, Kansas Department of Health and Environment is an awesome resource 
that I use a lot both from the emergency management and public health side, 
and then Center for Disease Control, and you know Kansas Division of Emergency 
Management sometimes shares that information so we can always look at what 
they have but primarily Kansas Department of Health, Center for Disease Control 
as far as animal health I look at the Kansas Division of Animal Health website. 
I’ve looked some at the World Health Organization’s website for issues when I’m 
doing presentations or gathering information those are probably the ones I use 
most often. 

 
State Veterinarians 
State veterinarians were a minor theme with livestock producers, emergency managers, and 
veterinarians turning to the state veterinarian for information about disease outbreaks. 
Livestock producer, Larry, utilizes the publications produced by the state veterinarian, “For 
information, would be the pamphlets and things that would come from the state vet here in 
Kansas. You know, livestock commissioners and the state vet.”  Eric an emergency manager 
discussed resources that would be used during an outbreak, “Resource wise, we’d be calling, 
use our available resources and then be calling in the state resources. Your state veterinarian, 
I’m sure would already be involved.” 
Veterinarian, Vance, prioritized his communication network based on types of outbreaks: 

I think the reasons for prioritizing it depends on what we’re dealing with. You 
know, if we’re dealing with something with, such as foreign animal disease, 
we’re calling our state veterinarian and getting the state involved and turning 
control over to them. If it’s over zoonotic potential, we’re coordinating with 
government regulations, but then we’re also coordinating very heavily with the 
feed yard managers. 

 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   45 
 

Audiences’ Communication Networks and Connections 
Researchers were interested in more than identifying major communication networks and 
sources, but also wanted to see how these networks connected. A complete communication 
network map was developed through the process of analyzing the data to see where the 
audiences in-person and virtual networks connected and the direction of these networks. A 
complete picture of the communication network map is in Figure 1. Audience group 
communication with other audience groups are designated with larger, colored arrows. Arrows 
going to and from audience groups display the two-way communication that occurs between 
groups. Solid lines going in one direction indicated multiple members from that audience group 
use that sources. Dashed lines indicate only one participant from the audience group uses that 
source. Lastly, the arrow looping around indicates a participant citing other colleagues within 
the same audience group as a source.   
 
Themes identified in the communication network map (Figure 1) show veterinarians and Kansas 
State University served as the two major sources of information and communication for all 
audience groups. Other frequently used sources by veterinarians, medical professionals, and 
emergency managers were the CDC and state veterinarians. Communication gaps between 
audience groups are: 1) veterinarians not communicating with livestock producers, 2) 
emergency managers not communicating with medical professionals or livestock producers, 
and 3) no communication between medical professionals and livestock producers. 
 
  



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   46 
 

Figure 1 
Model of the Social Network Map of livestock producers, veterinarians, human health 
professionals, and emergency managers  
 

 

  
The communication networks identified in this data allowed researchers to analyze data in real 
time to continuously build the model that emerged from this data. While Figure 1 represents a 
map of all communication networks during this time, Figure 2 represents the simplified model 
that emerged from the data to explain how groups would communicate with each other during 
a zoonotic disease outbreak. The colored circles represent the groups we collected data from in 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   47 
 

this study, livestock producers, veterinarians, medical professionals, and emergency managers. 
The arrows from these groups to other groups we studied indicate direction of information 
shared. The gray circles are groups that those we spoke to indicated they would share 
information with as a part of their response strategy to communicate with their stakeholders 
and members of the public. The rectangles are groups identified by study participants as groups 
they would seek information from or collaborate with during a zoonotic disease outbreak 
(Figure 2).  
 
Figure 2  
Simplified model of communication networks during zoonotic disease outbreak  

 

Note. Colored circles indicate the groups interviewed. Grey circles indicate groups the colored 
circles would share information within an effort to disseminate information in a crisis. Dashed 
line indicates a hypothesized two-way relationship because previous literature indicates this, 
even though data in this study only showed a one-way relationship. Rectangles are groups the 
colored circles would consult with for more information during a crisis.  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
An understanding of audiences’ social networks and where they obtain information adds a 
greater understanding of communication during a zoonotic disease outbreak. Through asking 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   48 
 

livestock producers, veterinarians, human health professionals, and emergency managers 
where they seek information and who they communicate with, a social network map was 
developed for future communication dissemination before, during, and after a crisis. The 
communication network map (Figure 2) emerged through the qualitative approach and is a 
framework that could be tested to see if this communication network exists in other states and 
across the United States for zoonotic disease communication.  
 
All audience groups turned to veterinarians and Kansas State University for information and 
communication related to zoonotic-disease communication. The CDC and state veterinarians 
served as other sources and emerged as minor themes. Medical professionals, veterinarians, 
and emergency managers turned to the CDC for a total of nine participants. Eight participants 
within the livestock producer, emergency manager, and veterinarian audience groups 
communicated and gather information from the state veterinarian.  
 
Audience groups regularly rely on veterinarians for information regarding zoonotic-disease 
outbreaks. This aligns with several previous studies (Ashlock et al., 2009; Israel & Wilson, 2006; 
Riley et al., 2012). Ashlock et al. (2009). identified veterinarians as livestock producers’ primary 
source of information about diseases. Kahn (2006), discussed the emphasis medical 
professionals place on veterinarians in communicating and educating about diseases (2006). 
The current study indicated a total of 20 (50%) participants from all audience groups seek 
information from or communicate with veterinarians.   
 
The vast social network may indicate the audience groups do not know where to gather 
information about zoonotic-disease outbreaks. Moolenaar and Daly (2012) indicated that social 
networks impact the quantity and quality of information that is obtained; but, a more 
streamlined approach to seeking information related to zoonotic-disease outbreaks may help 
improve the quality of information that is shared. However, the large information networks 
identified in the present study confirms work by Israel and Wilson (2006) that multiple 
networks are used by people to complete their understanding of complex topics.  
 
This study also highlights communication gaps. The first major gap in communication occurred 
when veterinarians did not communicate with other audience groups. Throughout the study, 
veterinarians identified sharing information with medical professionals and emergency 
managers, but not livestock producers, despite veterinarians being livestock producer’s top 
source of information in previous research (Breiner et al., 2007; Israel & Wilson, 2006; Riley et 
al., 2012). This highlights a gap in two-way communication in this particular study. Other gaps in 
communication include veterinarians not communicating with livestock producers, emergency 
managers not communicating with medical professionals or livestock producers, and no 
communication between medical professionals and livestock producers. It is assumed 
veterinarians are communicating and educating livestock producers since livestock producers 
turned to veterinarians for information; however, in this study, veterinarians did not specifically 
identify communicating with livestock producers. There was only one-way communication 
identified with emergency managers and medical professionals and livestock producers. 
Emergency managers were not seen communicating with these two groups. Lastly, there was 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   49 
 

no communication between medical professionals and livestock producers. Prior studies have 
indicated the need for greater communication among key players, especially between medical 
professionals and veterinarians (Chomel & Marano, 2009; Cripps, 2000; Kahn, 2006; Meyerholz, 
1974; Narrod et al., 2012; Sellnow et al., 2017; Zinsstag et al., 2007). The current study provides 
continued support for this.  
 
Extension services were a part of the social networks of livestock producers and veterinarians 
and mentioned specifically as a trusted source. Trust is essential for crisis management and 
communication (Coombs, 2019) and can increase the strength of social networks. More work 
should be done to increase the visibility and trust of Extension in other audience groups. 
 
Government agencies, such as the CDC and USDA, were also identified as a trusted source by 
participants in three audience groups: veterinarians, medical professionals, and emergency 
managers. Because this trust is already established, online communication from government 
agencies could serve as linkages between local and state groups during a zoonotic outbreak, 
however, previous work has identified that finding the large number of resources on the USDA 
and CDC websites can be difficult (Baker et al., 2020). 
 
Recommendations for future research include determining what education and communication 
tools help foster relationships between the various audience groups. It is also recommended 
that relationship indicators are examined to determine how these relationships might influence 
behavior change when identifying or treating zoonotic diseases. 
 
Professionals who play a key role in zoonotic disease outbreaks, such as livestock producers, 
veterinarians, human health professionals, and emergency managers, should cultivate and 
maintain relationships outside their usual professional group beyond times of disease 
outbreaks. It is recommended that task forces be established prior to a zoonotic disease 
outbreak so these groups can have established networks in place and form relationships and 
trust prior to a crisis. By doing so, they are building trust and credibility that can be applied 
once an outbreak does occur. Additionally, agricultural communication professionals can help 
foster these relationships by linking audience groups when applicable and by citing multiple 
sources when communicating about zoonotic disease outbreaks.  
 

Acknowledgements 
 
This work was supported by the State of Kansas, National Bio and AgroDefense Facility (NBAF) 
Transition Fund through the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center (NABC) at K-State 
University and the Center for Public Issues Education in Agriculture and Natural Resources (PIE 
Center), https://piecenter.com. 
 
 
 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   50 
 

References 
 
Ashlock, M. A., Cartmell, D. D., & Leising, J. G. (2009). Before it hits the fan: Pre-crisis beef 

producer information source preferences. Journal of Applied Communications, 93(3). 
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1198   

 
Baker, L. M., McLeod- Morin, A. N., Kent, K. W, & Lindsey, A. B. (2020). No online information 

outbreak: A quantitative content analysis of the CDC and USDA websites for available 
information on zoonotic disease, Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(1), 25-
37. https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.19  

 
Breiner, S. J., Grau, S. A., Barnhardt, B. B., & Bryant, A. M. (2007). Veterinarians are most 

popular source of information utilized by cow-calf producers. Kansas State University 
Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 0(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-
5977.1521  

 
Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ, 311(6999), 251-253. 

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251  
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention One Health. (n.d.). Zoonotic Diseases, 

https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html 
 
Chaklader, M.A. (2018). Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) in children in ethnic minority 

communities of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: A qualitative study, Journal of Health 
and Social Sciences, 3(2), 157-
170.https://doaj.org/article/b526a6f335f148c5b90b37f267c0641c  

 
Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. (2012). The handbook of crisis communication. Blackwell 

Publishing. 
 
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five 

approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc. 
 
Cripps, P. J. (2000). Veterinary education, zoonoses and public health: A personal perspective. 

Acta Tropica, 76(1), 77-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-706X(00)00094-2  
 
Decker, D., Evensen, D., Siemer, W., Leong, K., Riley, S., Wild, M., Castle, K., Higgins, C. (2010). 

Understanding risk perceptions to enhance communication about human-wildlife 
interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease, ILAR Journal, 51(3), 255-261. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.51.3.255    

 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   51 
 

Gebreyes, W. A., Dupouy-Camet, J., Newport, M. J., Oliveira, C. J. B., Schlesigner, L. S., Saif, Y. 
M.,… King, L. J. (2014). The global One Health paradigm: Challenges and opportunities 
for tackling infectious diseases at the human, animal, and environmental interface in 
low-resource settings. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 8(11). 
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003257  

 
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 

12(4), 436-445. http://doi.org/10.2307/798843  
 
Grant, S., & Olsen, C. W. (1999). Preventing zoonotic diseases in immunocompromised persons: 

the role of physicians and veterinarians. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(1), 159-163. 
https://doi.org/10.3201/eid0501.990121  

 
Hawe, P. & Ghali, L. (2008). Use of social network analysis to map the social relationships of 

staff and teachers at school. Health Education Research, 23(1), 62-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl162  

 
Irlbeck, E., Jennings, J. F., Meyers, C., Gibson, C., & Chambers, T. (2013). A case study of the 

crisis communications used in the 2009 salmonella outbreak in peanut products. Journal 
of Applied Communications, 97(4), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1125  

 
Israel, G. D. & Wilson, K. M. (2006). Sources and Channels of information used by educational 

program clients. Journal of Applied Communications, 90(4). 
https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1266  

 
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic 

and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4) 87-88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25316987 
 
Kahn, L. H. (2006). Confronting zoonoses, linking human and veterinary medicine. Emerging 

Infectious Disease, 12(4), 556-561. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1204.050956.  
 
Kolich, H. N. (2014). Risk and emergency communications: How to be heard when the message 

counts most. Journal of Extension, 52(6). 
https://www.joe.org/joe/2014december/a4.php 

 
Lederberg, J. (2002). Summary and Assessment. In Burroughs, Knobler, & Lederberg (Eds.), The 

Emergence of Zoonotic Diseases: Understanding the Impact on Animal and Human 
Health Workshop Summary, (113-124). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22764391/  

 
Mahajan, S. & Meyer, S. B. (2019). Social and structural factors that influence refugee women’s 

use of mental health care services in Canada: A narrative review, Journal of Health and 
Social Sciences, 4(3), 345-358. https://doi.org/10.19204/2019/scln2 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7afd/bd27517ce0d9ef34d65499f933b520c061fb.pdf 

 



Baker et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.41   52 
 

 McNulty, C., Ricketts, E. J., Fredlund, H., Uusküla, A., Town, K., Rugman, C. Tisler-Sala, 
A…Touboul, P. (2017). Qualitative interviews with healthcare staff in four European 
countries to inform adaptation of an intervention to increase chlamydia testing. BMJ 
Open, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017528 

 
Moennig, V. (2000). Introduction to classical swine fever: Virus, disease and control policy. 

Veterinary Microbiology, 73(2-3), 93-102. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10785320 

 
Narrod, C., Zinsstag, J., & Tiongco, M. (2012). A One Health framework for estimating the 

economic costs of zoonotic diseases on society. Eco Health, 9(2), 150-162. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0747-9 

 
Quinn, S., Parmer, J., Freimuth, V., Hilyard, K., Musa, D., and Kim, K. (2013). Exploring 

communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 
pandemic: Results of a national survey. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense 
Strategy, Practice, and Science, 11(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2012.0048  

 
Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students 

and researchers. SAGE Publications Ltd. 
 
Riley, K., Cartmell, D., & Naile, T. (2012). Kansas beef feedlot managers’ trusted sources of 

information concerning an agroterrorism event. Journal of Applied Communications, 
96(2).  https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1152 

 
Sell, T. K. (2017). When the next disease strikes: How to communicate (and how not to). Health 

Security, 15(1), 28-30. https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2016.0100  
 
Zinsstag, J., Schelling, E., Roth, F., Bonfoh, B., de Savigny, D., & Tanner, M. (2007). Human 

benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious 
Diseases, 13(4), 527-531. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1304.060381.  

 
 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


