Table 1.
Professional/Employment Characteristics and Geographic Locations of Panel Participants
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 52 | n = 40 | n = 34 | n = 24 | |
| Response rate | 62% | 77% | 85% | 71% |
| Employment setting | ||||
| Federal government | 7 (0.135)* | 6 (0.15) | 5 (0.147) | 4 (0.167) |
| Provincial governments | 17 (0.323) | 14 (0.35) | 11 (0.323) | 9 (0.375) |
| Regional/local health authorities | 7 (0.135) | 4 (0.1) | 4 (0.117) | 2 (0.083) |
| NGO/industry | 6 (0.115) | 5 (0.125) | 4 (0.117) | 1 (0.042) |
| University | 15 (0.288) | 11 (0.275) | 10 (0.294) | 8 (0.333) |
| Geographic area | ||||
| Federal/national | 12 (0.231) | 11 (0.275) | 8 (0.235) | 5 (0.208) |
| NSW | 13 (0.25) | 10 (0.25) | 9 (0.265) | 7 (0.292) |
| Victoria | 8 (0.154) | 5 (0.125) | 5 (0.147) | 4 (0.167) |
| Queensland | 6 (0.115) | 3 (0.075) | 3 (0.088) | 3 (0.125) |
| Western Australia | 5 (0. 096) | 4 (0.1) | 3 (0.088) | 0 |
| Northern Territory | 3 (0.057) | 3 (0.075) | 2 (0.059) | 2 (0.083) |
| South Australia | 2 (0.038) | 2 (0.05) | 2 (0.059) | 1 (0.042) |
| ACT | 2 (0.038) | 1 (0.025) | 1 (0.029) | 1 (0.042) |
| Tasmania | 1 (0.019) | 1 (0.025) | 1 (0.029) | 1 (0.042) |
| Primary role/responsibility | ||||
| Chief Medical/Veterinary Officers | 6 (0.115) | 4 (0.01) | 3 (0.088) | 2 (0.083) |
| Directors of Health/Biosecurity agencies | 11 (0.212) | 10 (0.25) | 9 (0.265) | 7 (0.292) |
| Public Health/Veterinary Officers | 9 (0.173) | 5 (0.125) | 4 (0.117) | 3 (0.125) |
| Senior Policy officer/research scientist | 12 (0.231) | 10 (0.25) | 8 (0.235) | 5 (0.208) |
| Academic clinician/researcher | 14 (0.269) | 11 (0.275) | 10 (0.294) | 7 (0.292) |
| Disciplinary/sectoral background | ||||
| Human health | 24 (0.462) | 20 (0.50) | 17 (0.5) | 11 (0.458) |
| Animal health | 28 (0.538) | 20 (0.50) | 17 (0.5) | 13 (0.542) |
* Data in brackets are proportions of total in each category.