FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2024; 57(2); 459-470; doi: 10.1111/evj.14115

Biosecurity perceptions among Ontario horse owners during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract: Disease outbreaks present a significant challenge to horse health and welfare and the economic stability of horse industries internationally. This is a particular concern in Ontario, Canada, where there have been frequent outbreaks of respiratory infectious diseases among horses. Despite these risks, there has been limited research on whether Ontario horse owners engage in biosecurity measures sufficient to mitigate risk of equine diseases, and whether current events such as the COVID-19 pandemic influence attitudes towards equine biosecurity practices. Objective: To explore Ontario horse owners' perceptions, attitudes and experiences relating to on-farm biosecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Qualitative study using virtual semi-structured interviews. Methods: Participants (horse owners, frequent horse riders and part boarders) were recruited using social media snowball sampling where advertisements were shared by equine and veterinary organisations. Interviews were conducted virtually between June and September 2022 and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three key themes relating to biosecurity perceptions among the 14 participants were identified. Participants relied on minimal preventative measures (such as vaccines) where perceived risk of disease was low, but implemented additional measures including quarantine and handwashing when perceived risk of disease was high. Participants' choice of biosecurity practices often mirrored those recommended by the barn manager. Moreover, participants felt that responsibility for biosecurity was not shared equally across horse owners, with more emphasis placed on those engaging in high-risk situations for disease spread. Despite experiencing biosecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, horse owners were not consistently applying these practices to their horse care routines. Conclusions: The perspectives reported here are from a small sample of horse owners and may not be generalisable to all populations. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that horse owners need improved access to and engagement with educational initiatives that emphasise the importance and purpose of all biosecurity measures. Unassigned: Krankheitsausbrüche stellen eine große Herausforderung für die Gesundheit und das Wohlergehen von Pferden sowie für die wirtschaftliche Stabilität der internationalen Pferdewirtschaft dar. Dies ist ein besonderes Problem in Ontario, Kanada, wo es häufig zu Ausbrüchen von Infektionskrankheiten der Atemwege bei Pferden gekommen ist. Trotz dieser Risiken gibt es nur wenige Untersuchungen darüber, ob Pferdebesitzer in Ontario ausreichende Biosicherheitsmaßnahmen ergreifen, um das Risiko von Pferdekrankheiten zu mindern, und ob aktuelle Ereignisse wie die COVID‐19‐Pandemie die Einstellung zu Biosicherheitspraktiken bei Pferden beeinflussen. Unassigned: Untersuchung der Wahrnehmungen, Einstellungen und Erfahrungen von Pferdebesitzern in Ontario in Bezug auf die Biosicherheit in landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben während der COVID‐19‐Pandemie. Methods: Qualitative Studie mit virtuellen halbstrukturierten Interviews. Methods: Die Teilnehmer (Pferdebesitzer, regelmäßige Reiter und Teilpächter) wurden über soziale Medien rekrutiert, in denen Anzeigen von Pferde‐ und Tierarztorganisationen geteilt wurden. Die Interviews wurden zwischen Juni und September 2022 virtuell durchgeführt und mit Hilfe einer reflexiven thematischen Analyse ausgewertet. Unassigned: Unter den 14 Teilnehmern wurden drei Hauptthemen in Bezug auf die Wahrnehmung der Biosicherheit ermittelt. Die Teilnehmer verließen sich auf minimale Präventivmaßnahmen (z. B. Impfungen), wenn das Risiko einer Erkrankung als gering eingeschätzt wurde, führten jedoch zusätzliche Maßnahmen wie Quarantäne und Händewaschen ein, wenn das Risiko einer Erkrankung als hoch eingeschätzt wurde. Die von den Teilnehmern gewählten Biosicherheitspraktiken entsprachen häufig den Empfehlungen des Stallbetreibers. Darüber hinaus waren die Teilnehmer der Ansicht, dass die Verantwortung für die Biosicherheit nicht gleichmäßig auf alle Pferdebesitzer verteilt ist, wobei der Schwerpunkt eher auf denjenigen liegt, die in Situationen mit hohem Risiko für die Verbreitung von Krankheiten involviert sind. Trotz der Erfahrungen mit der Biosicherheit während der COVID‐19‐Pandemie wandten die Pferdebesitzer diese Praktiken bei der Pflege ihrer Pferde nicht konsequent an. Unassigned: Die hier berichteten Perspektiven stammen von einer kleinen Stichprobe von Pferdebesitzern und sind möglicherweise nicht auf alle Bevölkerungsgruppen übertragbar. Unassigned: Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Pferdebesitzer einen besseren Zugang zu und eine stärkere Beteiligung an Aufklärungsinitiativen benötigen, die die Bedeutung und den Zweck aller Biosicherheitsmaßnahmen hervorheben.
© 2024 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-06-27 PubMed ID: 38934765PubMed Central: PMC11807931DOI: 10.1111/evj.14115Google 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 investigates the attitudes and practices of horse owners in Ontario, Canada, towards on-farm biosecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying areas for improvement in equine disease prevention measures.

Objective

  • The primary aim of this research was to examine the perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of horse owners in Ontario regarding on-farm biosecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

  • Using qualitative research methods, the authors conducted a series of virtual semi-structured interviews.
  • The participants for this study were horse owners, frequent horse riders, and part boarders, who were reached through social media snowball sampling, where ads were shared via equine and veterinary organizations.
  • The interviews took place between June and September 2022 and were analyzed by reflexive thematic analysis, a method of understanding an interviewee’s perspective and producing new insights.

Results

  • Analysis of the interviews identified three critical themes in biosecurity perceptions among the 14 participants.
  • Participants depended on minimal preventative measures, such as vaccines, when the perceived disease risk was low, but added other practices including quarantine and handwashing when the perceived risk was high.
  • The choice of biosecurity practices often mirrored those recommended by the barn manager.
  • However, the responsibility for these practices was viewed as not equitably shared amongst horse owners, with more expectation placed on those engaged in high-risk situations for disease spread.
  • Despite having experienced biosecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic, the horse owners did not consistently apply these practices into their horse care routines.

Conclusions

  • The findings from this relatively small sample of horse owners may not be applicable to all horse owners.
  • The study concludes that a need exists for improvement in access to and engagement with educational initiatives that highlight the importance and purpose of a full range of biosecurity measures in order to increase the implementation rate among horse owners.

Cite This Article

APA
Germann JA, O'Sullivan TL, Greer AL, Spence KL. (2024). Biosecurity perceptions among Ontario horse owners during the COVID-19 pandemic. Equine Vet J, 57(2), 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14115

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 57
Issue: 2
Pages: 459-470

Researcher Affiliations

Germann, Juliet A
  • Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
O'Sullivan, Terri L
  • Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Greer, Amy L
  • Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Spence, Kelsey L
  • Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

MeSH Terms

  • Horses
  • Animals
  • COVID-19 / epidemiology
  • COVID-19 / prevention & control
  • Ontario / epidemiology
  • Horse Diseases / prevention & control
  • Horse Diseases / epidemiology
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Biosecurity
  • Female
  • Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
  • Middle Aged
  • Adult
  • Animal Husbandry
  • Pandemics
  • Ownership
  • SARS-CoV-2

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared no conflicting interests.

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. Evans V. The State of the Industry 2010 Canadian Equine Industry Profile Study. 2011.
  2. Spence KL, O'Sullivan TL, Poljak Z, Greer AL. Estimating the potential for disease spread in horses associated with an equestrian show in Ontario, Canada using an agent‐based model. Prev Vet Med 2018;151:2–28.
    pubmed: 29496102
  3. Ontario Animal Health Network. Ontario equine disease alerts. 2023.
  4. Equestrian Canada. Response to COVID‐19 for Canada's active equines. .
  5. Weese JS. Infection control and biosecurity in equine disease control. Equine Vet J 2014;46:654–660.
    pmc: PMC7163522pubmed: 24802183
  6. Government of Canada. National farm and facility level biosecurity standard for the equine sector. .
  7. Crew CR, Brennan ML, Ireland JL. Implementation of biosecurity on equestrian premises: a narrative overview. Vet J 2023;292:105950.
    pubmed: 36642241
  8. Kirby AT, Train‐Dargatz JL, Hill AE, Kogan LR, Morley PS, Heird JC. Development, application, and validation of a survey for infectious disease control practices at equine boarding facilities. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2010;237(10):1166–1172.
    pubmed: 21073388
  9. Vanderman KS, Swinker AM, Gill BE, Radhakrishna RB, Kniffen DM, Staniar WB. Survey on the implementation of national equine identification in the United States. J Equine Vet 2009;29(12):819–822.
  10. Wiethoelter AK, Sawford K, Schembri N, Taylor MR, Dhand NK, Moloney B. “We've learned to live with it”—a qualitative study of Australian horse owners' attitudes, perceptions and practices in response to Hendra virus. Prev Vet Med 2017;140:67–77.
    pubmed: 28460752
  11. Schemann K, Taylor MR, Toribio JALML, Dhand NK. Horse owners' biosecurity practices following the first equine influenza outbreak in Australia. Prev Vet Med 2011;102:304–314.
    pubmed: 21893356
  12. Rogers CW, Cogger N. A cross‐sectional survey of biosecurity practices on Thoroughbred stud farms in New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2010;58(2):64–68.
    pubmed: 20383239
  13. Duong TT, Brewer TD, Luck J, Zander KK. Understanding biosecurity threat perceptions across Vietnamese smallholder farmers in Australia. Crop Prot 2019;117:147–155.
  14. Vermeulen L, Van Beirendonck S, Bulens A, Van Thielen J, Driessen B. The perception of biosecurity, management, and labour of batch management production systems among pig producers. Can J Anim Sci 2017;97(4):590–598.
  15. Kristensen E, Jakobsen EB. Danish dairy farmers' perception of biosecurity. Prev Vet Med 2011;99(2–4):122–129.
    pubmed: 21345504
  16. Brennan ML, Christley RM. Cattle producers' perceptions of biosecurity. BMC Vet Res 2013;9(71):1–8.
    pmc: PMC3626881pubmed: 23574789
  17. Renault V, Damiaans B, Humblet MF, Jiménez Ruiz S, García Bocanegra I, Brennan ML. Cattle farmers' perception of biosecurity measures and the main predictors of behaviour change: the first European‐wide pilot study. Transbound Emerg Dis 2021;68(6):3305–3319.
    pubmed: 33225630
  18. Garforth CJ, Bailey AP, Tranter RB. Farmers' attitudes to disease risk management in England: a comparative analysis of sheep and pig farmers. Prev Vet Med 2013;110(3–4):456–466.
    pubmed: 23490144
  19. Ritter C, Jansen J, Roche S, Kelton DF, Adams CL, Orsel K. Invited review: determinants of farmers' adoption of management‐based strategies for infectious disease prevention and control. J Dairy Sci 2017;100(5):3329–3347.
    pubmed: 28237585
  20. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991;50:179–211.
  21. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 1984;11(1):1–47.
    pubmed: 6392204
  22. Equestrian Canada. COVID‐19 return to business operations framework. .
  23. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016;26(13):1753–1760.
    pubmed: 26613970
  24. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. 2022.
  25. De Carlo M. Paradigms, theories, and how they shape a researcher’ approach. 2018.
  26. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. Guidelines for the vaccination of horses. .
  27. Reason J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care 1995;4(2):80–89.
    pmc: PMC1055294pubmed: 10151618
  28. D'Amore R. What is the ‘Swiss cheese model’ and how can it apply to coronavirus?. Global News 2020.
  29. Seshia SS, Bryan Young G, Makhinson M, Smith PA, Stobart K, Croskerry P. Gating the holes in the Swiss cheese (part I): expanding professor Reason's model for patient safety. J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24(1):187–197.
    pmc: PMC5901035pubmed: 29168290
  30. World Health Organization. Pandemic fatigue: reinvigorating the public to prevent COVID‐19. 2020.
  31. Spence KL, Rosanowski SM, Slater J, Cardwell JM. Challenges to exotic disease preparedness in Great Britain: the frontline veterinarian's perspective. Equine Vet J 2022;54(3):563–573.
    pubmed: 34043828
  32. Nixon J. Learning about equine biosecurity. Vet Rec 2015;176(23):i–ii.
    pubmed: 26044699
  33. Anderson LR, Mellor JM. Predicting health behaviors with an experimental measure of risk preference. J Health Econ 2008;27(5):1260–1274.
    pubmed: 18621427
  34. Satoh M, Sato N. Relationship of attitudes toward uncertainty and preventive health behaviors with breast cancer screening participation. BMC Womens Health 2021;21(1):171.
    pmc: PMC8061057pubmed: 33882923
  35. Manyweathers J, Field H, Longnecker N, Agho K, Smith C, Taylor M. “Why won't they just vaccinate” horse owner risk perception and uptake of the Hendra virus vaccine. BMC Vet Res 2017;13(1):103.
    pmc: PMC5390447pubmed: 28407738
  36. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. 1983.
  37. Ferrari M. Risk perception, culture, and legal change: a comparative study on food safety in the wake of the mad cow crisis. 2009.
  38. Barley JM, Latanfi B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol 1968;8(4, Pt 1):377–383.
    pubmed: 5645600
  39. Hussain I, Shu R, Tangirala S, Ekkirala S. The voice bystander effect: how information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Acad Manage J 2019;62(3):828–849.
  40. Scheufele DA, Moy P. Twenty‐five years of the spiral of silence: a conceptual review and empirical outlook. Int J Public Opin Res 2000;12(1):3–28.
  41. Voigt M, Russell M, Hiney K, Richardson J, Borron A, Brady C. Show horse welfare: evaluating stock‐type show horse industry legitimacy. J Agric Environ Ethics 2015;28(4):647–666.
  42. 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(8):e0160269.
    pmc: PMC4976980pubmed: 27501387
  43. National Farm Animal Care Council. Code of practice for the care and handling of equines. 2013.
  44. Shepperd J, Malone W, Sweeny K. Exploring causes of the self‐serving bias. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2008;2(2):895–908.
  45. Xun Z, Gilman S. Placing the blame: what if “they” REALLY are responsible?. J Med Humanit 2021;42(1):17–49.
    pmc: PMC7972006pubmed: 33738707
  46. Dariotis JK, Sloane SM, Smith RL. “I took it off most of the time ‘cause I felt comfortable’”: unmasking, trusted others, and lessons learned from a coronavirus disease 2019 reinfection: a case report. J Med Case Reports 2021;15(1):557.
    pmc: PMC8581599pubmed: 34763726
  47. Sauer MA, Truelove S, Gerste AK, Limaye RJ. A failure to communicate? How public messaging has strained the COVID‐19 response in the United States. Health Secur 2021;19:65–74.
    pmc: PMC9195491pubmed: 33606575
  48. Krugman P. A plague of wilful ignorance. The New York Times 2020.
  49. Deem SL, Lane‐de Graaaf KE, Rayhel EA. Introduction to One Health: an interdisciplinary approach to planetary health. 2019.
  50. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. How to reduce implicit bias. 2017.

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Germann JA, O'Sullivan TL, Greer AL, Spence KL. Predictors and barriers for biosecurity uptake and risk understanding among Ontario horse owners. Can Vet J 2025 Mar;66(3):288-297.
    pubmed: 40070939
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,824 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.