Research Appraisalqualitative

FEC Check: Development of a decision support tool to aid interpretation of gastrointestinal nematode faecal egg counts in sheep

The Veterinary recordGeddes, Eilidh, Duncan, Andrew, Lamont, Kate et al.2 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

75CEBM
Evidence: Moderatequalitative

PICO Framework

P — PopulationFarmers, livestock advisors, and veterinary clinicians involved in sheep parasite management
I — InterventionTraffic light-style decision support tool for interpreting faecal egg counts
C — ComparatorCurrent practice without structured decision support
O — OutcomesBarriers to FEC uptake, stakeholder feedback on tool usability, user adoption rates

Bottom Line

This qualitative study describes the development of a traffic light-style decision support tool for interpreting sheep faecal egg counts, addressing key barriers including timeliness, perceived need, and knowledge gaps. Focus groups with farmers, advisors, and veterinarians identified simplicity and ease of use as critical design principles. The tool achieved 1916 users within 12 months, suggesting good early adoption. While the research addresses a practical need in veterinary parasitology, the abstract provides limited methodological detail regarding sampling, analysis, and ethical considerations. The approach shows promise for improving evidence-based parasite management, though broader stakeholder engagement may enhance usability. This work could inform similar tool development in other livestock systems and geographical contexts.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not applicable for qualitative research

  • Effect Size: 1916 users within 12 months post-launch

  • Primary Outcome: Identification of barriers to FEC uptake and positive stakeholder feedback on decision support tool

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: User adoption rate demonstrates practical utility

  • Confidence Interval: Not applicable for qualitative research

Clinical Application

High feasibility given digital tool format and demonstrated early adoption Highly relevant to Australian sheep industry; could complement existing ParaBoss resources and support sustainable parasite management practices aligned with industry resistance management strategies Veterinary practitioners, livestock advisors, and sheep farmers managing gastrointestinal nematode infections

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal nematode infections are ubiquitous in grazing livestock worldwide impacting animal health and production. Faecal egg count (FEC) is an accessible diagnostic test that can guide the need for treatment. However, interpretation of FECs can be challenging. METHODS: A prototype decision support tool (DST) was developed using a 'traffic light'-style gradient of potential clinical impact on sheep FEC results. Focus groups were conducted with farmers, livestock advisors and veterinary clinicians to examine the barriers to FEC uptake and provide feedback on the prototype tool. RESULTS: Barriers to uptake for FEC testing included timeliness of reporting, lack of perceived need and knowledge gaps. The DST was well received at all focus groups, with simplicity and ease of use identified as key principles to drive uptake. At the 12 months post-launch, the DST had 1916 users. LIMITATIONS: Engagement with stakeholders with less familiarity with FECs may improve usability for a wider audience. CONCLUSION: The final DST developed here represents a practical resource to improve the interpretation of FEC results reported by farmers and other stakeholders. The initial uptake observed within the first year since launch is promising for the wider adoption of evidence-based parasite management.

References

  1. 1.Geddes, E., Duncan, A., Lamont, K., Duncan, J. M., Bartley, D. J., Sargison, N., Kenyon, F., & Melville, L. A. (2026). FEC Check: Development of a decision support tool to aid interpretation of gastrointestinal nematode faecal egg counts in sheep. The Veterinary Record. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SQA4E
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service