FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / A two-year participatory intervention project with owners to...
PloS one2015; 10(4); e0124342; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124342

A two-year participatory intervention project with owners to reduce lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India.

Abstract: Participatory methods are increasingly used in international human development, but scientific evaluation of their efficacy versus a control group is rare. Working horses support families in impoverished communities. Lameness and limb abnormalities are highly prevalent in these animals and a cause for welfare concern. We aimed to stimulate and evaluate improvements in lameness and limb abnormalities in horses whose owners took part in a 2-year participatory intervention project to reduce lameness (PI) versus a control group (C) in Jaipur, India. Results: In total, 439 owners of 862 horses participated in the study. PI group owners from 21 communities were encouraged to meet regularly to discuss management and work practices influencing lameness and poor welfare and to track their own progress in improving these. Lameness examinations (41 parameters) were conducted at the start of the study (Baseline), and after 1 year and 2 years. Results were compared with control horses from a further 21 communities outside the intervention. Of the 149 horses assessed on all three occasions, PI horses showed significantly (P<0.05) greater improvement than C horses in 20 parameters, most notably overall lameness score, measures of sole pain and range of movement on limb flexion. Control horses showed slight but significantly greater improvements in four parameters, including frog quality in fore and hindlimbs. Conclusions: This participatory intervention succeeded in improving lameness and some limb abnormalities in working horses, by encouraging changes in management and work practices which were feasible within owners' socioeconomic and environmental constraints. Demonstration of the potentially sustainable improvements achieved here should encourage further development of participatory intervention approaches to benefit humans and animals in other contexts.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2015-04-21 PubMed ID: 25898014PubMed Central: PMC4405470DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124342Google 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
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

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 study was conducted to reduce lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India through a two-year intervention program with their owners. The participatory intervention project resulted in significant improvements in the condition of the horses, highlighting the potential benefits of such approaches.

Objective of the Study

  • The main aim of the study was to encourage and evaluate improvements in lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India.
  • The study targeted horse owners who participated in a two-year participatory intervention project designed to reduce lameness in horses. The results of the project were compared against a control group.

Methodology

  • Altogether, 439 owners of 862 horses participated in the study. The intervention group consisted of owners from 21 communities who were encouraged to regularly discuss management and work practices that influence the occurrence of lameness and poor welfare in horses.
  • Physical evaluations, based on 41 parameters, were conducted at the beginning of the study, and then after one year and two years. The results for the intervention group were compared with the control group, which included horses from an additional 21 communities not involved in the intervention.

Findings

  • Out of the 149 horses assessed on all three occasions, horses in the participatory intervention showed significant improvement in 20 parameters, especially in overall lameness score, measures of sole pain, and range of movement on limb flexion.
  • Control horses, although showing slight improvements, had significantly better outcomes in four parameters, including frog quality in fore and hindlimbs.

Conclusions

  • The study concluded that this participatory intervention was effective in improving lameness and some limb abnormalities in working horses by promoting changes in management and work practices.
  • The improvements were made within the socioeconomic and environmental constraints of the owners, demonstrating the potential sustainability of improvements achieved through such interventions.
  • The successful results of the study support further development of participatory intervention approaches that could benefit both humans and animals in other contexts.

Cite This Article

APA
Reix CE, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RM, Banerjee A, Burn CC, Pritchard JC, Whay HR. (2015). A two-year participatory intervention project with owners to reduce lameness and limb abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India. PLoS One, 10(4), e0124342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124342

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 4
Pages: e0124342
PII: e0124342

Researcher Affiliations

Reix, Christine E
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom; The Brooke, London, United Kingdom.
Dikshit, Amit K
  • Help in Suffering, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur, India.
Hockenhull, Jo
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Parker, Richard M A
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.
Banerjee, Anindo
  • Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices, C-75, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi, India.
Burn, Charlotte C
  • Centre for Animal Welfare, Department of Clinical Veterinary Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Pritchard, Joy C
  • Animals in International Development, Banwell, North Somerset, United Kingdom; The Brooke, London, United Kingdom.
Whay, Helen R
  • School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford House, North Somerset, United Kingdom.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Extremities / pathology
  • Gait
  • Horse Diseases / prevention & control
  • Horses
  • India
  • Lameness, Animal / prevention & control

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 29 references
  1. FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organisation Statistical Database, Live Animals. 2010. Available: http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor. Accessed 8 April 2011.
  2. Pritchard JC, Lindberg AC, Main DC, Whay HR. Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys, using health and behaviour parameters.. Prev Vet Med 2005 Jul 12;69(3-4):265-83.
    pubmed: 15907574doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2005.02.002google scholar: lookup
  3. Upjohn MM, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KL. Helping working Equidae and their owners in developing countries: monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based interventions.. Vet J 2014 Feb;199(2):210-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.09.065pubmed: 24269105google scholar: lookup
  4. Whay HR. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim Welfare 2007; 16: 117–122.
  5. Pradhan SK, Ali M, Ranjan R, Van Dijk L. Participatory welfare needs assessment: a community-driven approach towards improving the welfare of working equines. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equines 29th November- 2nd December 2006, New Delhi, India, pp44.
  6. Whay HR, Main DCJ. Improving animal welfare: practical approaches for achieving change. In: Grandin T editor. Improving animal welfare: a practical approach. Wallingford: CABI; 2010. pp.227–251.
  7. Van Dijk L, Pritchard JC, Pradhan SK, Wells K. Sharing the Load: a guide to improving the welfare of working animals through collective action. Bourton on Dunsmore: Practical Action Publishing Ltd; 2011.
  8. Hagmann J, Chuma E, Murwira K, Connelly M. Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 94 Overseas Development Institute, London, UK; 1999.
  9. Kumar S. Methods for community participation: a complete guide for practitioners. Intermediate Technology Publications Limited, Rugby, UK; 2002. pp23–28; 128–143.
  10. Manandhar DS, Osrin D, Shrestha BP, Mesko N, Morrison J, Tumbahangphe KM, Tamang S, Thapa S, Shrestha D, Thapa B, Shrestha JR, Wade A, Borghi J, Standing H, Manandhar M, Costello AM. Effect of a participatory intervention with women's groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial.. Lancet 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):970-9.
    pubmed: 15364188doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17021-9google scholar: lookup
  11. Tsutsumi A, Nagami M, Yoshikawa T, Kogi K, Kawakami N. Participatory intervention for workplace improvements on mental health and job performance among blue-collar workers: a cluster randomized controlled trial.. J Occup Environ Med 2009 May;51(5):554-63.
    doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a24d28pubmed: 19365287google scholar: lookup
  12. Fidiel MM. Sustainable methods of extension and education—Practical Action’s experience with community-led extension services in North Darfur state, Sudan. Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Working Equines 30th October— 2nd November 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp360-367.
  13. Murthy KS, Lal M. Evaluation of participatory approaches to preventive practices and resource facilitation to improve equine welfare. Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Working Equines 30th October— 2nd November 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp445-452.
  14. Rodríguez PAV, Pearson RA, Bobadilla HA, Hernández-Gil M. An ILPH programme to improve the quality of forage available for equids in rural Mexico. Proceedings of the 5th International Colloquium on Working Equines 30th October— 2nd November 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp407-420.
  15. Guha K, Pradhan SK, Rangnekar DV, Van Dijk L. A decade of intervention for welfare improvement of working equines in India: lessons learnt and transition in approach. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids New Delhi, India, 29th November— 2nd December 2010, pp 5–8.
  16. Upjohn MM, Attwood GA, Lerotholi T, Pfeiffer DU, Verheyen KL. Quantitative versus qualitative approaches: a comparison of two research methods applied to identification of key health issues for working horses in Lesotho.. Prev Vet Med 2013 Mar 1;108(4):313-20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.11.008pubmed: 23419786google scholar: lookup
  17. Adair JG. The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. J Appl Psychol 1984; 69: 334.
  18. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Environmental and demographic risk factors for poor welfare in working horses, donkeys and mules in developing countries.. Vet J 2010 Dec;186(3):385-92.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.09.016pubmed: 19926316google scholar: lookup
  19. Broster CE, Burn CC, Barr AR, Whay HR. The range and prevalence of pathological abnormalities associated with lameness in working horses from developing countries.. Equine Vet J 2009 May;41(5):474-81.
    pubmed: 19642408doi: 10.2746/042516409x373907google scholar: lookup
  20. Ashley FH, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural assessment of pain in horses and donkeys: application to clinical practice and future studies.. Equine Vet J 2005 Nov;37(6):565-75.
    pubmed: 16295937doi: 10.2746/042516405775314826google scholar: lookup
  21. Broster CE, Burn CC, Barr ARS, Whay HR. Prioritising indicators of lameness and related pain in working equids to be included in a practical field lameness assessment tool. Proceedings of the 6th International Colloquium on Working Equids New Delhi, India, 29th November— 2nd December 2010, pp 9–11.
  22. Steele F. Multilevel models for longitudinal data. J R Statist Soc A 2008; 171 (1): 5–19.
  23. Rasbash J, Steele F, Browne WJ, Goldstein H. A User’s Guide to MLwiN, v2.10. University of Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Bristol, UK; 2009.
  24. Rasbash J, Browne WJ, Healy M, Cameron B, Charlton C. MLwiN Version 2.22. University of Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, Bristol, UK; 2010.
  25. Geor RJ. Metabolic Predispositions to Laminitis in Horses and Ponies: Obesity, Insulin Resistance and Metabolic Syndromes. J Equine Vet Sci 2008; 28(12), 753–759.
  26. Main DC, Leach KA, Barker ZE, Sedgwick AK, Maggs CM, Bell NJ, Whay HR. Evaluating an intervention to reduce lameness in dairy cattle.. J Dairy Sci 2012 Jun;95(6):2946-54.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2011-4678pubmed: 22612932google scholar: lookup
  27. Fuller CJ, Bladon BM, Driver AJ, Barr AR. The intra- and inter-assessor reliability of measurement of functional outcome by lameness scoring in horses.. Vet J 2006 Mar;171(2):281-6.
    pubmed: 16490710doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.10.012google scholar: lookup
  28. Landsberger HA. Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1958.
  29. Nutbeam D. Evaluating health promotion—progress, problems and solutions. Health Promot Int 1998; 13 (1): 27–4.

Citations

This article has been cited 12 times.
  1. Romero MH, Meneses F, Sanchez JA. Welfare assessment of horses and mules used in recreational and muleteer work in the Colombian coffee region. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:1031192.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1031192pubmed: 36467651google scholar: lookup
  2. Merridale-Punter MS, Wiethoelter AK, El-Hage CM, Hitchens PL. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Working Equid Lameness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals (Basel) 2022 Nov 10;12(22).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223100pubmed: 36428328google scholar: lookup
  3. Jain S, Patil SG, Chinta G, Alluri KV. TamaFlex™-A novel nutraceutical blend improves lameness and joint functions in working horses. Vet Med Sci 2022 Sep;8(5):1936-1945.
    doi: 10.1002/vms3.894pubmed: 35905197google scholar: lookup
  4. Khan RZU, Rosanowski SM, Saleem W, Parkes RSV. Cross-Sectional Questionnaire of Donkey Owners and Farriers Regarding Farriery Practices in the Faisalabad Region of Pakistan. Animals (Basel) 2022 Mar 11;12(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12060709pubmed: 35327105google scholar: lookup
  5. Haddy E, Burden F, Fernando-Martínez JA, Legaria-Ramírez D, Raw Z, Brown J, Kaminski J, Proops L. Evaluation of long-term welfare initiatives on working equid welfare and social transmission of knowledge in Mexico. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0251002.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251002pubmed: 33945552google scholar: lookup
  6. Urner N, Sauter-Louis C, Staubach C, Conraths FJ, Schulz K. A Comparison of Perceptions of Estonian and Latvian Hunters With Regard to the Control of African Swine Fever. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:642126.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.642126pubmed: 33937371google scholar: lookup
  7. Mohite DS, Sheikh CS, Singh S, Kalita J, Williams S, Compston PC. Using Qualitative Methods to Explore Farrier-Related Barriers to Successful Farriery Interventions for Equine Welfare in India. Animals (Basel) 2019 May 18;9(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9050252pubmed: 31109080google scholar: lookup
  8. Schulz K, Calba C, Peyre M, Staubach C, Conraths FJ. Hunters' acceptability of the surveillance system and alternative surveillance strategies for classical swine fever in wild boar - a participatory approach. BMC Vet Res 2016 Sep 6;12(1):187.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-016-0822-5pubmed: 27601050google scholar: lookup
  9. Whay HR, Dikshit AK, Hockenhull J, Parker RM, Banerjee A, Hughes SI, Pritchard JC, Reix CE. Evaluation of changes in equine care and limb-related abnormalities in working horses in Jaipur, India, as part of a two year participatory intervention study. PLoS One 2015;10(5):e0126160.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126160pubmed: 26000967google scholar: lookup
  10. Cameron A, Freeman SL, Wild I, Burridge J, Burrell K. Scoping Review of the Socioeconomic Value of Working Equids, and the Impact of Educational Interventions Aimed at Improving Their Welfare. Animals (Basel) 2026 Jan 7;16(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani16020165pubmed: 41594356google scholar: lookup
  11. Phannithi T, Laikul A, Pathomsakulwong W, Rungsri P, Apichaimongkonkun T, Watchrarat K, Cherdchutham W. External Hoof Measurements of Untrimmed and Unshod Mules in Northern Thailand. Animals (Basel) 2024 Apr 16;14(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14081197pubmed: 38672345google scholar: lookup
  12. Bonsi M, Anderson NE, Carder G. The Socioeconomic Impact of Diseases of Working Equids in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Critical Review. Animals (Basel) 2023 Dec 15;13(24).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13243865pubmed: 38136902google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,001 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.