FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Equine Vet J / Drivers of decision making in pain diagnosis and treatment: ...
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1111/evj.14562

Drivers of decision making in pain diagnosis and treatment: Findings from an ethnographic study of veterinary practice.

Abstract: Poor pain management in horses is a welfare concern. The 'diagnosis' of pain cannot be separated from the broader set of interactions through which it emerges. The interactions that take place during veterinary consultations shape the ways in which, or whether, pain management is discussed. Objective: To understand owners' and veterinarians' decision making in relation to chronic pain and its management. Methods: Qualitative ethnographic study. Methods: Data were collected from four veterinary practices in Great Britain between May 2023 and April 2024. Around 200 h of ethnographic observation was undertaken, including the observation of 47 consultations. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with 18 veterinarians and 25 owners/carers were conducted. Principles of grounded theory were drawn upon throughout the collection and analysis of data. Results: This study focusses on the veterinary consultation, discussing how the interplay of actors-both human and nonhuman-affected pain diagnosis and treatment decision making. There were four key processes that were common across the consultations observed: 'Establishing the presence of painful issues', 'Searching for the cause', 'The (de)escalation of issues of concern' and 'Targeting the source of pain'. In each consultation, dynamic multi-actor interactions coproduced matters of concern, and these were the 'things' to which peoples' perceptions of pain were related. Pain diagnosis was not a 'matter of fact', but emerged through relational practices. Consultations could move towards a focus on the horse's management, however, other matters of concern could obfuscate discussions about the subjective experience of the horse. Conclusions: Focus on leisure horse population. Conclusions: Pain could become a matter of veterinary concern if it emerged through unique contexts and practices. The nature of presentation to the veterinarian as well as the (re)construction of issues affecting the horse through veterinary medical practices could create tensions for pain management. Opportunities to improve practice are highlighted.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-07-27 PubMed ID: 40714975DOI: 10.1111/evj.14562Google 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 study analyzes how decisions regarding pain diagnosis and treatment for horses are made during veterinary consultations, considering the interaction between veterinarians, horse owners, and the horses themselves. The study highlights a need to improve practices to better manage chronic pain and enhance horse welfare.

Research Objective

  • The study aims to understand the decision-making process of both horse owners and veterinarians in regard to chronic pain diagnosis and management in horses.

Methodology

  • The researchers adopted a qualitative ethnographic approach for the study. The data was collected from four veterinary practices in Great Britain over a period of one year, from May 2023 to April 2024.
  • About 200 hours of observations were made, which included watching 47 consultations. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 18 veterinarians and 25 horse owners or caretakers.
  • The principles of grounded theory were applied during the data analysis.

Findings

  • The study focused on the interactions during veterinary consultations, revealing that both human and non-human actors influenced the pain diagnosis and treatment decisions.
  • The research identified four key processes during consultations: identifying the presence of painful issues, finding the cause, evaluating issues of concern, and targeting the source of pain.
  • The results indicated that the perception of pain was related to the co-produced matters of concern through dynamic interactions during each consultation.
  • Pain diagnosis was found to be a relational practice rather than a factual matter, often involving discussions around horse management. However, other concerns could prevent discussions about the horse’s subjective experience.

Conclusions

  • The study concluded that pain could become a veterinary concern if it emerged through unique contexts and practices. The nature of the horse’s presentation to the veterinarian, along with the issues identified and practices employed, could create tensions for managing pain.
  • The research emphasizes the need to improve existing practices for better pain management and enhanced welfare of the horse population, particularly those used for leisure.

Cite This Article

APA
Smith R, Perkins E, Pinchbeck G, Ireland J. (2025). Drivers of decision making in pain diagnosis and treatment: Findings from an ethnographic study of veterinary practice. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14562

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Smith, Rebecca
  • Department of Equine Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Perkins, Elizabeth
  • Department of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Pinchbeck, Gina
  • Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ireland, Joanne
  • Department of Equine Clinical Science, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Grant Funding

  • G2026 / Horse Trust

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Appleby MC, Olsson IAS, Galindo F. Animal Welfare. 3rd ed. Oxfordshire: CABI; 2018.
  2. Rioja‐Lang F, Bacon H, Connor M, Dwyer CM. Prioritisation of animal welfare issues in the UK using expert consensus. Vet Rec 2020;187(12):490.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105964google scholar: lookup
  3. Bard AM, Main DCJ, Haase AM, Whay HR, Roe EJ, Reyher KK. The future of veterinary communication: partnership or persuasion? A qualitative investigation of veterinary communication in the pursuit of client behaviour change. PLoS One 2017;12(3):e0171380.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171380google scholar: lookup
  4. Sanders CR. The veterinarian: caring for canine patients. Understanding Dogs Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 1999.
  5. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Ireland J, Perkins E. Becoming a matter of veterinary concern. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1355996.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1355996google scholar: lookup
  6. Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1966/36
  7. RCVS. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons code of professional conduct for veterinary surgeons. 2025 Available from: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting‐standards/advice‐and‐guidance/code‐of‐professional‐conduct‐for‐veterinary‐surgeons/pdf/
  8. Blaxter M. Diagnosis as category and process: the case of alcoholism. Soc Sci Med 1978;12:9–17.
    doi: 10.1016/0271-7123(78)90017-2google scholar: lookup
  9. Hobson‐West P, Jutel A. Animals, veterinarians and the sociology of diagnosis. Sociol Health Illn 2020;42:393–406.
    doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13017google scholar: lookup
  10. Weich K, Grimm H. Meeting the Patient's interest in veterinary clinics. Ethical dimensions of the 21st century animal patient. Food Ethics 2018;1:259–272.
    doi: 10.1007/s41055-017-0018-0google scholar: lookup
  11. Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor‐network‐theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  12. Marshall‐Gibson ME, Durham MG, Seabaugh KA, Moorman VJ, Ferris DJ. Survey of equine veterinarians regarding primary equine back pain in the United States. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1224605.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1224605google scholar: lookup
  13. Elte Y, Wolframm I, van Grevenhof I, Nielen M, van Weeren R. Survey‐based investigation of sports and leisure horse owners' approaches to, and expectations of, equine veterinary care. Vet Rec 2024;194:e4197.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.4197google scholar: lookup
  14. Belshaw Z, Dean R, Asher L. Could it be osteoarthritis? How dog owners and veterinary surgeons describe identifying canine osteoarthritis in a general practice setting. Prev Vet Med 2020;185:105198.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105198google scholar: lookup
  15. Sellon DC, Sanz M, Kopper JJ, Mattei D. Pain severity scores for common equine disorders as provided by horse owners and equine veterinarians. Equine Vet J 2022;54:1094–1102.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13559google scholar: lookup
  16. Price J, Marques JM, Welsh EM, Waran NK. Pilot epidemiological study of attitudes towards pain in horses. Vet Rec 2002;151(19):570–575.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.151.19.570google scholar: lookup
  17. Waran N, Williams VM, Clarke N, Bridge IS. Recognition of pain and use of analgesia in horses by veterinarians in New Zealand. N Z Vet J 2010;58(6):274–280.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2010.69402google scholar: lookup
  18. Welsh CE, Duz M, Parkin TDH, Marshall JF. Prevalence, survival analysis and multimorbidity of chronic diseases in the general veterinarian‐attended horse population of the UK. Prev Vet Med 2016;131:137–145.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.07.011google scholar: lookup
  19. Lesimple C, Fureix C, Aubé L, Hausberger M. Detecting and measuring Back disorders in nonverbal individuals: the example of domestic horses. Anim Behav Cogn 2016;3:159–179.
    doi: 10.12966/abc.05.08.2016google scholar: lookup
  20. Lesimple C, Fureix C, Biquand V, Hausberger M. Comparison of clinical examinations of back disorders and humans' evaluation of back pain in riding school horses. BMC Vet Res 2013;9:209.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-209google scholar: lookup
  21. Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall; 1969.
  22. Irvine L. A model of animals selfhood: expanding interactionist possibilities. Symbolic Interaction 2004;27:3–21.
    doi: 10.1525/si.2004.27.1.3google scholar: lookup
  23. Brewer JD. Ethnography. London: Open University Press; 2000.
  24. Charmaz K, Mitchell R. Grounded theory in ethnography. Handbook of ethnography SAGE Publications Ltd; 2001.
    doi: 10.4135/9781848608337google scholar: lookup
  25. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE; 2014.
  26. Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Rev. ed. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction; 2009.
  27. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018.
  28. Silverman J, Kurtz S, Draper J. Skills for communicating with patients. Florida: CRC Press; 2013.
  29. Despret V. The body we care for: figures of Anthropo‐zoo‐genesis. Body and Society 2004;10(2–3):111–134.
    doi: 10.1177/1357034x04042938google scholar: lookup
  30. Mol A. In: Smith BH, Weintraub ER, editors. The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham and London: Springer; 2002.
  31. Pols J. Towards an empirical ethics in care: relations with technologies in health care. Med Health Care and Philos 2015;18:81–90.
    doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9582-9google scholar: lookup
  32. Auer U, Kelemen Z, Vogl C, von Ritgen S, Haddad R, Torres Borda L. Experiences of end‐of‐life decision‐making in equine veterinary and charity teams. Animals 2025;15(5):678.
    doi: 10.3390/ani15050678google scholar: lookup
  33. Morgan CA. Stepping up to the plate: animal welfare, veterinarians and ethical conflicts. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of British Columbia. 2009.
  34. WellChild. Communicating Lily's pain. 2024. https://www.wellchild.org.uk/get-support/information-hub/communicating-lilys-pain-resources-that-explore-communication-challenges-that-can-occur-around-a-child-with-profound-cognitive-impairment/
  35. Conrad P, Barker KK. The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications. J Health Soc Behav 2010;51:S67–S79.
    doi: 10.1177/0022146510383495google scholar: lookup
  36. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, McGowan C, Ireland J, Perkins E. Challenges for the veterinary profession: a grounded theory study of veterinarians' experiences of caring for older horses. Equine Vet J 2024;57:1053–1064.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14444google scholar: lookup
  37. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: helping people change. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2012.
  38. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: helping people change. New York: Guilford Publications. ProQuest Ebook Central; 2012.
  39. Auer U, Kelemen Z, Vogl C, von Ritgen S, Haddad R, Torres Borda L. Development, refinement, and validation of an equine musculoskeletal pain scale. Front Pain Res 2023;4:1292299.
    doi: 10.3389/fpain.2023.1292299google scholar: lookup
  40. Howard DL, Lancaster B, de Grauw J. Development and preliminary validation of an equine brief pain inventory for owner assessment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis in horses. Animals 2024;14(2):181.
    doi: 10.3390/ani14020181google scholar: lookup
  41. van Loon JPAM, Macri L. Objective assessment of chronic pain in horses using the horse chronic pain scale (HCPS): a scale‐construction study. Animals 2021;11(6):1826.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061826google scholar: lookup
  42. Franklin M, Lewis S, Willis K, Rogers A, Venville A, Smith L. Controlled, constrained, or flexible? How self‐management goals are shaped by patient–provider interactions. Qual Health Res 2019;29:557–567.
    doi: 10.1177/1049732318774324google scholar: lookup
  43. Muir WW. Pain: mechanisms and Management in Horses. Vet Clin North Am Equine Prac 2010;26(3):467–480.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2010.07.008google scholar: lookup
  44. van Weeren PR, Back W. Musculoskeletal disease in aged horses and its management. Vet Clin North Am Equine Prac 2016;32(2):229–247.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2016.04.003google scholar: lookup
  45. Hamilton L, Taylor N. Ethnography after humanism: power, politics and method in multi‐species research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.