FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(21); doi: 10.3390/ani12212937

A Qualitative Exploration of UK Leisure Horse Owners’ Perceptions of Equine Wellbeing.

Abstract: Human assessment of equine wellbeing is fundamental to ensuring the optimal care of domestic horses. However, terminology associated with wellbeing is still not fully defined and there are currently no validated quality of life (QoL) assessment tools. Furthermore, little is known about what equine wellbeing or QoL means to horse owners, or how their beliefs impact on the management decisions they make for their horse. This study sought to establish how UK leisure horse owners use wellbeing-related terminology by exploring their accounts within a focus group setting. Four online focus group discussions (FGD) were held and qualitative data were collected. FGDs involved a semi-structured discussion, followed by a group activity to compare seven equine wellbeing-related terms of interest introduced by the facilitator. The collected data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory approach, and also by content analysis, to examine the frequency and subjective meaning of the terms of interest. The results showed that horse owners did not clearly delineate between different terms, rather, they used the terms in the context of their own assessments of their horse. The meanings assigned to what owners experienced with their horse were individual and subjective, shaped by past experiences, relationships with their animal, and peers or social groups. This individualised construction of equine wellbeing impacted on the meaning conveyed when using wellbeing-related terminology. In this study, we extend the literature on equine wellbeing terminology usage, and highlight differences between the academic literature and the real-world experiences of horse owners.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-10-26 PubMed ID: 36359063PubMed Central: PMC9654126DOI: 10.3390/ani12212937Google 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.

The research article examines how UK horse owners who ride for leisure perceive the concept of horse wellbeing, and how they use related terminology. It also looks at the owners’ individual experiences and relationships with their horses, and how such factors impact their understanding of equine wellbeing.

Objective and Methodology

The study aims to shed light on several areas, such as how horse owners understand the term ‘wellbeing’, how they use related terms while describing horse health and emotions, and how their experiences and relationships with their horses affect these perceptions. To find out these, the researchers opted for focus group discussions (FGD) as their primary data collection method, where four online FGDs were held. These discussions were semi-structured, allowing the participants to freely communicate their thoughts and experiences.

  • A group activity was also included as part of each FGD, where participants were asked to compare seven terms related to equine wellbeing.
  • To interpret the responses, they used a constructivist grounded theory approach and a content analysis method.
  • The constructivist grounded theory approach helped the researchers to understand how horse owners construct the concept of equine wellbeing based on their personal experiences and social influences.
  • The content analysis method was used to identify the frequency and meaning of the seven wellbeing-related terms according to the participants.

Key Findings

The study discovered that the horse owners weren’t making clear distinctions between the terms related to equine wellbeing, instead, they were using them as per the context and their evaluation of their horse’s condition.

  • Each participant had a unique understanding of equine wellbeing, which was influenced by their personal experiences, relationships with their horses, and social circle.
  • This subjective viewpoint eventually affected the meaning expressed when using wellbeing-related terms.

Significance of the Study

This study broadens the existing literature on the usage of equine wellbeing-related terminology.

  • It also highlights the gap between the academic understanding and horse owners’ lived experiences, which might ignite a conversation about developing a validated quality of life assessment tool for horses, something that is currently unavailable.
  • This research could help equine welfare organizations understand owner’s perceptions better, potentially leading to more effective communication strategies and education programs aimed at improving horse wellbeing.

Cite This Article

APA
Smith R, Furtado T, Brigden C, Pinchbeck G, Perkins E. (2022). A Qualitative Exploration of UK Leisure Horse Owners’ Perceptions of Equine Wellbeing. Animals (Basel), 12(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212937

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 21

Researcher Affiliations

Smith, Rebecca
  • Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, Cheshire CH64 7TE, UK.
Furtado, Tamzin
  • Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, Cheshire CH64 7TE, UK.
Brigden, Charlotte
  • Equine Department, University Centre Myerscough, St Michael's Road, Bilsborrow, Preston PR3 0RY, UK.
Pinchbeck, Gina
  • Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, Cheshire CH64 7TE, UK.
Perkins, Elizabeth
  • Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Block H, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L69 3GF, UK.

Grant Funding

  • G2018 and G1019 / The Horse Trust

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 39 references
  1. Dalla Costa E, Dai F, Lebelt D, Scholz P, Barbieri S, Canali E, Zanella A, Minero M. Welfare Assessment of Horses: The AWIN Approach. Anim. Welf. 2016;25:481–488.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.481google scholar: lookup
  2. Lesimple C. Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art. Animals 2020;10:294.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pmc: PMC7070675pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  3. Mellor DJ. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016;6:21.
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  4. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, 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
  5. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr ARS, Whay HR. Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders’ Understanding. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2017;20:9–23.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1197776pubmed: 27414640google scholar: lookup
  6. 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
  7. Bell C, Rogers S. Attitudes of the Equestrian Public towards Equine End-of-Life Decisions. Animals 2021;11:1776.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061776pmc: PMC8232243pubmed: 34198636google scholar: lookup
  8. Furtado T, Perkins E, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Watkins F, Christley R. Hidden in Plain Sight: Uncovering the Obesogenic Environment Surrounding the UK’s Leisure Horses. Anthrozoos 2021;34:491–506.
    doi: 10.1080/08927936.2021.1914431google scholar: lookup
  9. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Ireland J, Perkins E. Caring for the Older Horse: A Conceptual Model of Owner Decision Making. Animals 2021;11:1309.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051309pmc: PMC8147395pubmed: 34063176google scholar: lookup
  10. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, Mcgowan C, Ireland J, Perkins E. The Older Horse Consultation: Using Sociological Research to Support Equine Veterinarians in Practice. Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Society for Anthrozoology; virtual event. 7 July 2022.
  11. Furtado T, Perkins E, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Watkins F, Christley R. Exploring Horse Owners’ Understanding of Obese Body Condition and Weight Management in UK Leisure Horses. Equine Vet. J. 2020;53:752–762.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13360pubmed: 33002214google scholar: lookup
  12. Mellor DJ. Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals 2017;7:60.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7080060pmc: PMC5575572pubmed: 28792485google scholar: lookup
  13. Broom D. Animal Welfare: Concepts and Measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 1991;69:4167–4178.
    doi: 10.2527/1991.69104167xpubmed: 1778832google scholar: lookup
  14. McMillan FD, Yeates JW. Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals. CAB International; Wallingford, UK: 2020. The Problems with Well-Being Terminology; pp. 8–20.
  15. Thompson K, Haigh L. Perceptions of Equitation Science Revealed in an Online Forum: Improving Equine Health and Welfare by Communicating Science to Equestrians and Equestrian to Scientists. J. Vet. Behav. 2018;25:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.02.002google scholar: lookup
  16. Ireland J. Assessing quality of life in older horses. UK-Vet Equine 2020;4.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2020.4.5.124google scholar: lookup
  17. Long M, Dürnberger C, Jenner F, Kelemen Z, Auer U, Grimm H. Quality of Life within Horse Welfare Assessment Tools: Informing Decisions for Chronically Ill and Geriatric Horses. Animals 2022;12:1822.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141822pmc: PMC9311870pubmed: 35883370google scholar: lookup
  18. Belshaw Z, Asher L, Harvey ND, Dean RS. Quality of Life Assessment in Domestic Dogs: An Evidence-Based Rapid Review. Vet. J. 2015;206:203–212.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.016pmc: PMC4641869pubmed: 26358965google scholar: lookup
  19. Rioja-Lang FC, Connor M, Bacon H, Dwyer CM. Determining a Welfare Prioritization for Horses Using a Delphi Method. Animals 2020;10:647.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040647pmc: PMC7222753pubmed: 32283607google scholar: lookup
  20. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Whay HR. Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0160269.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160269pmc: PMC4976980pubmed: 27501387google scholar: lookup
  21. Scantlebury CE, Perkins E, Pinchbeck GL, Archer DC, Christley RM. Could It Be Colic? Horse-Owner Decision Making and Practices in Response to Equine Colic. BMC Vet. Res. 2014;10:S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S1pmc: PMC4122872pubmed: 25238026google scholar: lookup
  22. Wilkinson S. Focus Group Methodology: A Review. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 1998;1:181–203.
    doi: 10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874google scholar: lookup
  23. Furtado T. Exploring the Recognition and Management of Obesity in Horses through Qualitative Research. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Liverpool; Liverpool, UK: 2019.
  24. Furtado T, Perkins E, McGowan C, Pinchbeck G. Equine Management in UK Livery Yards during the COVID-19 Pandemic—“As Long As the Horses Are Happy, We Can Work Out the Rest Later”. Animals 2021;11:1416.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051416pmc: PMC8156832pubmed: 34069277google scholar: lookup
  25. Butler D, Valenchon M, Annan R, Whay HR, Mullan S. Living the ‘Best Life’ or ‘One Size Fits All’—Stakeholder Perceptions of Racehorse Welfare. Animals 2019;9:134.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9040134pmc: PMC6523604pubmed: 30935137google scholar: lookup
  26. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. SAGE; London, UK: 2014.
  27. Andrews T. What Is Social Constructionism?. [(accessed on 17 October 2022)]. Available online: https://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/.
  28. Holton JA. The Coding Process and Its Challenges. Grounded Theory Rev [Internet] 2010 9 [(accessed on 17 October 2022)]; Available online: http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2010/04/02/the-coding-process-and-its-challenges/.
  29. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making: A Critical Review Using a Systematic Search Strategy. Med. Decis. Mak. 2015;35:539–557.
    doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547740pubmed: 25145577google scholar: lookup
  30. Gooskens C, van Heuven VJ. Mutual Intelligibility. In: Zampieri M., Nakov P., editors. Similar Languages, Varieties, and Dialects: A Computational Perspective. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 2021. pp. 51–95.
  31. Bell C, Rogers S, Taylor J, Busby D. Improving the Recognition of Equine Affective States. Animals 2019;9:1124.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121124pmc: PMC6941154pubmed: 31835886google scholar: lookup
  32. Horseman SV, Roe EJ, Huxley JN, Bell NJ, Mason CS, Whay HR. The Use of In-Depth Interviews to Understand the Process of Treating Lame Dairy Cows from the Farmers’ Perspective. Anim. Welf. 2014;23:157–165.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.2.157google scholar: lookup
  33. Hausberger M, Lesimple C, Henry S. Detecting Welfare in a Non-Verbal Species: Social/Cultural Biases and Difficulties in Horse Welfare Assessment. Animals 2021;11:2249.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11082249pmc: PMC8388525pubmed: 34438708google scholar: lookup
  34. Philpotts I, Dillon J, Rooney N. Improving the Welfare of Companion Dogs—Is Owner Education the Solution?. Animals 2019;9:662.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9090662pmc: PMC6770859pubmed: 31500203google scholar: lookup
  35. Visser EK, Van Wijk-Jansen EEC. Diversity in Horse Enthusiasts with Respect to Horse Welfare: An Explorative Study. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2012;7:295–304.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  36. Parker RA, Yeates JW. Assessment of Quality of Life in Equine Patients. Equine Vet. J. 2012;44:244–249.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00411.xpubmed: 21767299google scholar: lookup
  37. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, Platt L, Pinchbeck GL. Factors Associated with Mortality of Geriatric Horses in the United Kingdom. Prev. Vet. Med. 2011;101:204–218.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.06.002pubmed: 21733586google scholar: lookup
  38. Sim J. Collecting and Analysing Qualitative Data: Issues Raised by the Focus Group. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998;28:345–352.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00692.xpubmed: 9725732google scholar: lookup
  39. Kristiansen TM, Grønkjær M. Focus Groups as Social Arenas for the Negotiation of Normativity. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2018;17:1–11.
    doi: 10.1177/1609406917747393google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 13 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,780 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.