Online survey questions

This file is the full text of an on‑line questionnaire (Survey_full.docx) prepared for COST Action BETTER (CA20103) and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe. Its aim is to collect comparable information about ongoing or past projects and training activities dealing with animal biosecurity and herd‑health management (HHM). The survey will be launched as a self‑administered web form; completion time is about ten minutes. Participation is voluntary, fully anonymous (no IP is stored) and governed by GDPR‑compliant informed‑consent text.

## Main blocks
Information (consent, study goal, contacts, deadline).
Introductory items: slider 0–100 for self‑rated knowledge and ordered years‑of‑experience question.
Profession selection (veterinarian, farmer, undergraduate student, other stakeholder).
Biosecurity projects and HHM projects: respondents review a validated list and can register up to five additional projects, giving title/acronym, optional URL and funding origin.
Role‑specific modules: large six‑point Likert batteries on perceived “training gaps,” routed by profession and, for veterinarians, by main animal species (cattle, poultry, swine, small ruminants, other).
Training inventories: repeated loop (max 5 per topic) to record biosecurity or HHM trainings with title, URL, main audience and target species.
Final open “Comments” box.

Skip logic is simple (Yes/No filters and profession branches), so each respondent sees only relevant sections.

Data interpretation
– Slider values can be analysed as quasi‑continuous self‑efficacy scores; ordered experience levels can be recoded to mid‑point years.
– Likert items (1 = very big gap … 6 = no gap) lend themselves to scale construction; check internal consistency before summing.
– Free‑text project and training records should be coded for species, geography, funding and topic; text mining helps discover themes.
– Branching means denominators differ across modules.

Potential uses
• Mapping (European) biosecurity and HHM initiatives.
• Comparing perceived training needs across stakeholder groups.

Strengths: broad stakeholder coverage, species‑specific detail, built‑in lists that aid recall, ethical data handling. Limitations: self‑selection bias, reliance on self‑reported knowledge, forced‑choice six‑point scale may frustrate some respondents.

The questionnaire has been translated into Albanian, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish to maximize reach.