FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / A Delphi Study to Determine International and National Eques...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(21); 3404; doi: 10.3390/ani13213404

A Delphi Study to Determine International and National Equestrian Expert Opinions on Domains and Sub-Domains Essential to Managing Sporthorse Health and Welfare in the Olympic Disciplines.

Abstract: The public is increasingly questioning equestrianism's social license to operate. While the focus historically centered on horseracing, increased scrutiny is now being placed on how dressage, showjumping, and eventing are addressing equine management and welfare concerns. Nominated equestrian federation and equestrian organization experts ( = 104) directly involved in international and/or national-level horse sports took part in a four-stage, iterative Delphi to obtain consensus on what factors should be considered essential to manage sporthorse health and welfare. Five core domains were agreed as essential: training management, competition management, young horse management, health status and veterinary management, and the horse-human relationship. Two further domains: stable and environmental management, and welfare assessment were rated as important but not essential, as most respondents felt that these areas were already managed well. Participants felt increased education and guidance combined with further policy development and regulation are needed to support stakeholders to optimize sporthorse management. An appetite to engage with research to generate evidence that promotes sporthorse welfare was evident. The development of a sporthorse welfare charter and evidence-based guidelines to inform the management and monitoring of sporthorses' health and welfare are recommended to provide horses with a good life and to safeguard the future of equestrian sports.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-11-02 PubMed ID: 37958159PubMed Central: PMC10650931DOI: 10.3390/ani13213404Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study uses a Delphi method to gather international and national equestrian experts’ opinions on essential areas for managing horse welfare in Olympic equestrian disciplines. Five main areas were identified: training management, competition management, young horse management, health status and veterinary management, and the horse-human relationship, while stable and environmental management, and welfare assessment were considered important but already well-managed.

Methodology

  • The researchers used a Delphi method to gather consensus from expert participants. This is a structured group communication process to gain consensus from a panel of selected experts.
  • The panel consisted of 104 equestrian federation and equestrian organization experts who were directly involved in international and/or national-level horse sports.

Findings

  • The panel identified five areas as essential for sporthorse health and welfare: training management, competition management, young horse management, health status and veterinary management, and the horse-human relationship.
  • Two further domains: stable and environmental management, and welfare assessment were considered important but not essential. The general belief among panel members was that these domains were already well managed within the industry.

Recommendations

  • The study concludes with the recommendation for increased education and guidance along with further policy development and regulation to support stakeholders in managing sporthorse health and welfare optimally.
  • The experts showed an interest in connecting with research for evidence-based practices promoting sporthorse welfare.
  • The authors recommend developing a sporthorse welfare charter and evidence-based guidelines to inform the management and monitoring of the horses’ health and welfare. These measures are proposed to ensure a good life for sports horses and to safeguard the future of equestrian sports.

Cite This Article

APA
Williams JM, Berg LC, Clayton HM, Kirsch K, Marlin D, Randle H, Roepstroff L, Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan MSV, Weishaupt MA, Munsters C. (2023). A Delphi Study to Determine International and National Equestrian Expert Opinions on Domains and Sub-Domains Essential to Managing Sporthorse Health and Welfare in the Olympic Disciplines. Animals (Basel), 13(21), 3404. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13213404

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 21
PII: 3404

Researcher Affiliations

Williams, Jane M
  • Equine Department, Hartpury University, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK.
Berg, Lise C
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Science, University of Copenhagen, Hoejbakkegaards Alle 5, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
Clayton, Hilary M
  • Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Kirsch, Katharina
  • Department Sensors and Modeling, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany.
Marlin, David
  • AnimalWeb Ltd., Tennyson House, Cambridge CB4 0WZ, UK.
Randle, Hayley
  • School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.
Roepstroff, Lars
  • Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden.
Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan, Marianne Sloet van
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, 3584 CM Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Weishaupt, Michael A
  • Equine Department, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Munsters, Carolien
  • Equine Integration B.V., Groenstraat 2c, 5528 NS Hoogeloon, The Netherlands.

Grant Funding

  • NA / World Horse Welfare

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest and declare no personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results.

References

This article includes 78 references
  1. Campbell M.L.. An ethical framework for the use of horses in competitive sport: Theory and function.. Animals 2021;11:1725.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061725pmc: PMC8230307pubmed: 34207809google scholar: lookup
  2. Williams J.M.. Equestrianism’s social license to operate: Assumptions, reality and the future.. UK-Vet Equine 2023;7:196–202.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2023.7.5.196google scholar: lookup
  3. Douglas J., Owers R., Campbell M.L.. Social Licence to operate: What can equestrian sports learn from other industries?. Animals 2022;12:1987.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151987pmc: PMC9367437pubmed: 35953977google scholar: lookup
  4. Wolframm I.A., Douglas J., Pearson G.. Changing hearts and minds in the equestrian world one behaviour at a time.. Animals 2023;13:748.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13040748pmc: PMC9952075pubmed: 36830535google scholar: lookup
  5. McManus P.. Animal-based entertainment industries, animal death and Social Licence to Operate (SLO): An analysis of ‘The Final Race’and the 2019 Melbourne Cup.. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 2023;24:1242–1261.
    doi: 10.1080/14649365.2022.2053194google scholar: lookup
  6. Arcari P.. Slow violence against animals: Unseen spectacles in racing and at zoos.. Geoforum 2023;144:103820.
    doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103820google scholar: lookup
  7. Arjen Lubach ‘Avondshow’, Netherlands, 2022. [(accessed on 1 February 2023)]. Available online: https://www.levendehave.nl/nieuws/dierrecht-wil-verbod-op-bit-en-zweep-sectorraad-paarden-pleit-voor-dialoog.
  8. Williams J., Tabor G.. Rider impacts on equitation.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;190:28–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.019google scholar: lookup
  9. Williams J., Greening L., Marlin D., Randle H.. Understanding whip use in riders in sports horse disciplines; Proceedings of the International Society for Equitation Science: 15th International Conference of the International Society for Equitation Science; Guelph, ON, Canada. 19–21 August 2019.. .
  10. Randle H., Steenbergen M., Roberts K., Hemmings A.. The use of the technology in equitation science: A panacea or abductive science?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;190:57–73.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.017google scholar: lookup
  11. Williams J.M., Marlin D.. Foreword–Emerging issues in equestrian practice.. Comp. Exerc. Phys. 2020;16:1–4.
    doi: 10.3920/CEP20x001google scholar: lookup
  12. Fiedler J., Thomas M., Ames K.. Informing a social license to operate communication framework: Attitudes to sport horse welfare; Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Equitation Science Conference; Guelph, ON, Canada. 19–21 August 2019; pp. 19–21.. .
  13. Duncan E., Graham R., McManus P.. ‘No one has even seen… smelt… or sensed a Social Licence’: Animal geographies and social licence to operate.. Geoforum 2018;96:318–327.
    doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.020google scholar: lookup
  14. Moffat K., Lacey J., Zhang A., Leipold S.. The social licence to operate: A critical review.. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2016;89:477–488.
    doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpv044google scholar: lookup
  15. Waran N., Randle H.. What we can measure, we can manage: The importance of using robust welfare indicators in Equitation Science.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;190:74–81.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.016google scholar: lookup
  16. Furtado T., Rendle D.. To improve welfare in the equine species should we place greater emphasis on understanding our own?. Equine Vet. J. 2022;54:1001–1004.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13869pubmed: 36196749google scholar: lookup
  17. Linstone H.A., Turoff M., editors. The Delphi Method.. Addison-Wesley; Reading, MA, USA: 1975. pp. 3–12.
  18. Hsu C.C., Sandford B.A.. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2019;12:10.
  19. Grime M.M., Wright G.. Delphi method.. Wiley Stats Ref Stat. Ref. Online. 2016;1:16.
  20. Belton I., MacDonald A., Wright G., Hamlin I.. Improving the practical application of the Delphi method in group-based judgment: A six-step prescription for a well-founded and defensible process.. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019;147:72–82.
    doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.002google scholar: lookup
  21. Ioannou L.G., Dinas P.C., Notley S.R., Gofa F., Gourzoulidis G.A., Brearley M., Epstein Y., Havenith G., Sawka M.N., Bröde P.. Indicators to assess physiological heat strain–Part 2: Delphi exercise.. Temperature 2022;9:263–273.
    doi: 10.1080/23328940.2022.2044738pmc: PMC9542877pubmed: 36211947google scholar: lookup
  22. Muller B.G., Van den Bos W., Brausi M., Fütterer J.J., Ghai S., Pinto P.A., Popeneciu I.V., De Reijke T.M., Robertson C., De La Rosette J.J.M.C.H.. Follow-up modalities in focal therapy for prostate cancer: Results from a Delphi consensus project.. World J. Urol. 2015;33:1503–1509.
    doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1475-2pmc: PMC7721864pubmed: 25559111google scholar: lookup
  23. Broomfield D., Humphris G.M.. Using the Delphi technique to identify the cancer education requirements of general practitioners.. Med. Educ. 2001;35:928–937.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2001.01022.xpubmed: 11564196google scholar: lookup
  24. Ferri C.P., Prince M., Brayne C., Brodaty H., Fratiglioni L., Ganguli M., Hall K., Hasegawa K., Hendrie H., Huang Y.. Global prevalence of dementia: A Delphi consensus study.. Lancet 2005;366:2112–2117.
    doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67889-0pmc: PMC2850264pubmed: 16360788google scholar: lookup
  25. Van der Steen J.T., Radbruch L., Hertogh C.M., de Boer M.E., Hughes J.C., Larkin P., Francke A.L., Jünger S., Gove D., Firth P.. White paper defining optimal palliative care in older people with dementia: A Delphi study and recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care.. Palliat. Med. 2014;28:197–209.
    doi: 10.1177/0269216313493685pubmed: 23828874google scholar: lookup
  26. Varrassi G., Alon E., Bagnasco M., Lanata L., Mayoral-Rojals V., Paladini A., Pergolizzi J.V., Perrot S., Scarpignato C., Tölle T.. Towards an effective and safe treatment of inflammatory pain: A Delphi-guided expert consensus.. Advs. Ther. 2019;36:2618–2637.
    doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01053-xpmc: PMC6822819pubmed: 31485978google scholar: lookup
  27. Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C., Dommerholt J.. International consensus on diagnostic criteria and clinical considerations of myofascial trigger points: A Delphi study.. Pain Med. 2018;19:142–150.
    doi: 10.1093/pm/pnx207pubmed: 29025044google scholar: lookup
  28. Whay H.R., Main D.C.J., Green L.E., Webster A.J.F.. Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: Consensus of expert opinion.. Anim. Welf. 2003;12:205–217.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600025641google scholar: lookup
  29. More S.J., McKenzie K., O’Flaherty J., Doherty M.L., Cromie A.R., Magan M.J.. Setting priorities for non-regulatory animal health in Ireland: Results from an expert Policy Delphi study and a farmer priority identification survey.. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010;95:198–207.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.04.011pubmed: 20554068google scholar: lookup
  30. Rioja-Lang F.C., Connor M., Bacon H.J., Lawrence A.B., Dwyer C.M.. Prioritization of farm animal welfare issues using expert consensus.. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;6:495.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00495pmc: PMC6967597pubmed: 31998770google scholar: lookup
  31. Rioja-Lang F., Bacon H., Connor M., Dwyer C.M.. Rabbit welfare: Determining priority welfare issues for pet rabbits using a modified Delphi method.. Vet. Rec. Open. 2019;6:e000363.
    doi: 10.1136/vetreco-2019-000363pmc: PMC6924855pubmed: 31903189google scholar: lookup
  32. Toma C., Picioreanu I.. The Delphi technique: Methodological considerations and the need for reporting guidelines in medical journals.. Int. J. Public Health Res. 2016;4:47–59.
  33. Tabor G., Nankervis K., Fernandes J., Williams J.. Generation of domains for the equine musculoskeletal rehabilitation outcome score: Development by expert consensus.. Animals 2020;10:203.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020203pmc: PMC7070405pubmed: 31991716google scholar: lookup
  34. Ayre C., Scally A.J.. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation.. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2014;47:79–86.
    doi: 10.1177/0748175613513808google scholar: lookup
  35. Slade S.C., Dionne C.E., Underwood M., Buchbinder R.. Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: Protocol for a modified Delphi study.. BMJ Open 2014;4:e006682.
    doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006682pmc: PMC4281530pubmed: 25550297google scholar: lookup
  36. Kwon J.H., Hui D., Bruera E.. A pilot study to define chemical coping in cancer patients using the Delphi method.. J. Palliat. Med. 2015;18:703–706.
    doi: 10.1089/jpm.2014.0446pmc: PMC4522949pubmed: 25922879google scholar: lookup
  37. Suris J.C., Akre C.. Key elements for, and indicators of, a successful transition: An international Delphi study.. J. Adolesc. Health. 2015;56:612–618.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.02.007pubmed: 26003575google scholar: lookup
  38. Powell C.. The Delphi technique: Myths and realities.. J. Adv. Nurs. 2003;41:376–382.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.xpubmed: 12581103google scholar: lookup
  39. Lawshe C.H.. A quantitative approach to content validity.. Pers. Psych. 1975;28:563–575.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  40. Huang H.C., Lin W.C., Lin J.D.. Development of a fall-risk checklist using the Delphi technique.. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008;17:2275–2283.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02337.xpubmed: 18705704google scholar: lookup
  41. Zamanzadeh V., Ghahramanian A., Rassouli M., Abbaszadeh A., Alavi-Majd H., Nikanfar A.R.. Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication.. J. Caring Sci. 2015;4:165–178.
    doi: 10.15171/jcs.2015.017pmc: PMC4484991pubmed: 26161370google scholar: lookup
  42. Graham B., Regehr G., Wright J.G.. Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria.. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2003;56:1150–1156.
    doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00211-7pubmed: 14680664google scholar: lookup
  43. Rashidian N., Willaert W., Van Herzeele I., Morise Z., Alseidi A., Troisi R.I., Alabbad S., Doyle M.B., Briceño-Delgado J., Calise F.. Key components of a hepatobiliary surgery curriculum for general surgery residents: Results of the FULCRUM International Delphi consensus.. Hpb. 2020;22:1429–1441.
    doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.01.011pubmed: 32060009google scholar: lookup
  44. Graneheim U.H., Lindgren B.M., Lundman B.. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper.. Nurse Educ. Today. 2017;56:29–34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002pubmed: 28651100google scholar: lookup
  45. Hassan T.B., Barnett D.B.. Delphi type methodology to develop consensus on the future design of EMS systems in the United Kingdom.. Emer. Med. J. 2002;19:155–159.
    doi: 10.1136/emj.19.2.155pmc: PMC1725813pubmed: 11904271google scholar: lookup
  46. Sharkey S.B., Sharples A.Y.. An approach to consensus building using the Delphi technique: Developing a learning resource in mental health.. Nurse Educ. Today. 2001;21:398–408.
    doi: 10.1054/nedt.2001.0573pubmed: 11403587google scholar: lookup
  47. McGreevy P.D., McLean A.N.. Roles of learning theory and ethology in equitation.. J. Vet. Behav. 2007;2:108–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2007.05.003google scholar: lookup
  48. Trench B.. Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices.. Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2008. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models; pp. 119–135.
  49. Freeman S.L.. Study design synopsis: Evidence syntheses—What are they and why do we need them?. Equine Vet. J. 2002;54:1011–1012.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13872pubmed: 36196748google scholar: lookup
  50. Green B., Parry D., Oeppen R.S., Plint S., Dale T., Brennan P.A.. Situational awareness–what it means for clinicians, its recognition and importance in patient safety.. Oral Dis. 2017;23:721–725.
    doi: 10.1111/odi.12547pubmed: 27447437google scholar: lookup
  51. Endsley M.R., Garland D.J.. Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review.. Situat. Aware. Anal. Meas. 2000;1:3–21.
  52. Choudhry N.K., Fletcher R.H., Soumerai S.B.. Systematic review: The relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care.. Ann. Intern. Med. 2005;142:260–273.
    doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-4-200502150-00008pubmed: 15710959google scholar: lookup
  53. Mondino E., Scolobig A., Borga M., Di Baldassarre G.. The role of experience and different sources of knowledge in shaping flood risk awareness.. Water 2020;12:2130.
    doi: 10.3390/w12082130google scholar: lookup
  54. Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission, International Equestrian Federation, Opinions of Equestrian Stakeholders on the Use of Horses in Sport: Survey Report. 2022. [(accessed on 1 April 2023)]. Available online: https://equinewellbeing.fei.org/assets/documents/Results%20of%20Equestrian%20Survey%20%E2%80%93%20Equine%20Ethics%20and%20Wellbeing%20Commission%20Report%202022.pdf.
  55. Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission, International Equestrian Federation, Public Attitudes on the Use of Horses in Sport: Survey Report. 2022. [(accessed on 1 April 2023)]. Available online: https://equinewellbeing.fei.org/assets/documents/Results%20of%20General%20Public%20Survey%20-%20%20Equine%20Ethics%20and%20Wellbeing%20Commission%20Report%202022.pdf.
  56. Lee D.G., Daunizeau J., Pezzulo G.. Evidence or Confidence: What is really monitored during a decision?. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2023;30:1360–1379.
    doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02255-9pmc: PMC10482769pubmed: 36917370google scholar: lookup
  57. Collins Online Dictionary. 2023. [(accessed on 1 April 2023)]. Available online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/regulatory-framework.
  58. Campbell M.. Animals, Ethics and Us: A Veterinary’s View of Human-Animal Interactions.. 5m Books Ltd.; Essex, UK: 2019.
  59. Swedish Animal Welfare Act, 2018:1192. [(accessed on 1 April 2023)]. Available online: https://www.globalanimallaw.org/downloads/database/national/sweden/animal-welfare-act-2018-english.pdf.
  60. Tierschutz im Pferdesport. 2020. [(accessed on 1 February 2023)]. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/tierschutzpferdesport.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.
  61. Campbell M.L.. Ethical Justifications for the Use of Animals in Competitive Sport.. Sport Ethics Philos. 2023:1–20.
    doi: 10.1080/17511321.2023.2236798google scholar: lookup
  62. Baumgartner M., Kuhnke S., Hülsbergen K.J., Erhard M.H., Zeitler-Feicht M.H.. Improving horse welfare and environmental sustainability in horse husbandry: Linkage between turnout and nitrogen surplus.. Sustainability 2021;13:8991.
    doi: 10.3390/s጖8991google scholar: lookup
  63. Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J., Littlewood K.E., McLean A.N., McGreevy P.D., Jones B., Wilkins C.. The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare.. Animals 2020;10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  64. Brown B., Cardwell J.M., Verheyen K.L., Campbell M.L.. Testing and Refining the Ethical Framework for the Use of Horses in Sport.. Animals 2023;13:1821.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13111821pmc: PMC10252045pubmed: 37889722google scholar: lookup
  65. McGreevy P.D.. The advent of equitation science.. Vet. J. 2007;174:492–500.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2006.09.008pubmed: 17157542google scholar: lookup
  66. McGreevy P.D., McLean A.N.. Punishment in horse-training and the concept of ethical equitation.. J. Vet. Behav. 2009;4:193–197.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.001google scholar: lookup
  67. Jones B., McGreevy P.D.. Ethical equitation: Applying a cost-benefit approach.. J. Vet. Behav. 2010;5:196–202.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.04.001google scholar: lookup
  68. Furtado T., Preshaw L., Hockenhull J., Wathan J., Douglas J., Horseman S., Smith R., Pollard D., Pinchbeck G., Rogers J.. How happy are equine athletes? Stakeholder perceptions of equine welfare issues associated with equestrian sport.. Animals 2021;11:3228.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113228pmc: PMC8614509pubmed: 34827960google scholar: lookup
  69. Dalla Costa E., Dai F., Lebelt D., Scholz P., Barbieri S., Canali E., Zanella A.J., Minero M.. Welfare assessment of horses: The AWIN approach.. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  70. Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission, International Equestrian Federation, 24 Draft Recommendations. 2023. [(accessed on 20 May 2023)]. Available online: https://equinewellbeing.fei.org/assets/documents/EEWB%2024%20Draft%20Recommendations.pdf.
  71. Heleski C.R.. Social License to Operate–Why Public Perception Matters for Horse Sport–Some Personal Reflections.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2023;124:104266.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104266pubmed: 36898616google scholar: lookup
  72. Mellor D.J.. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Liv-ing”.. Animals 2016;6:21.
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  73. Hockenhull J., Whay H.R.. A review of approaches to assessing equine welfare.. Equine Vet. Ed. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  74. Miller L.J., Vicino G.A., Sheftel J., Lauderdale L.K.. Behavioral diversity as a potential indicator of positive animal welfare.. Animals 2020;10:1211.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071211pmc: PMC7401597pubmed: 32708625google scholar: lookup
  75. Maurício L.S., Leme D.P., Hötzel M.J.. How to understand them? A review of emotional indicators in horses.. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2023;126:104249.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104249pubmed: 36806715google scholar: lookup
  76. Sherwen S.L., Hemsworth L.M., Beausoleil N.J., Embury A., Mellor D.J.. An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos.. Animals 2018;8:130.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8080130pmc: PMC6116011pubmed: 30060544google scholar: lookup
  77. Holt J.. Horses as players in equine sports.. Sport Ethics Philos. 2023 :1–9.
    doi: 10.1080/17511321.2023.2189291google scholar: lookup
  78. Hanton S., Thomas O., Mellalieu S.D.. Handbook of Sports Medicine and Science: Sport Psychology. Management of competitive stress in elite sport; pp. 30–42.. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ, USA: 2009.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.