FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2025; doi: 10.1111/evj.14537

Equine veterinarians’ care priorities regarding vaccination, colic, lameness and pre-purchase scenarios.

Abstract: Equine veterinarians play a crucial role in maintaining equine health and ensuring client satisfaction. Understanding their perspectives on key aspects of veterinary care is essential for optimising outcomes for both clients and horses. Objective: To identify and compare the importance equine veterinarians place on seven key aspects of client satisfaction in equine veterinary practice (quality of care, quality of service, horsemanship, interpersonal skills, transfer of knowledge, financial aspects and professionalism) across four different scenarios. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study. Methods: A total of 246 equine veterinarians participated in the online survey, which included ranking the seven aspects of equine veterinary care across four scenarios. The data were analysed using Friedman tests to assess differences within and across scenarios, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine differences between groups of veterinarians. Results: Quality of care was ranked most important in the colic (median rank: 1, interquartile range [IQR]: 1-2) and lameness (median rank: 1, IQR: 1-2) scenarios (p < 0.001), reflecting the critical nature of these conditions. Quality of service showed no differences in ranking across the scenarios. Professionalism was ranked significantly more important in the pre-purchase scenario (median rank: 2, IQR: 1-3) compared to other scenarios (p < 0.001). Financial aspects were consistently ranked least important (median rank: 7, IQR: 6-7, p < 0.001). No differences in ranking were found between different groups of veterinarians. Conclusions: Participants may not accurately represent the diversity and characteristics of the entire equine veterinary population. The scenarios do not fully encompass the diversity of equine veterinary practice. Conclusions: Equine veterinarians prioritise quality of care, quality of service and professionalism in their practice, with some variations depending on the clinical scenario. Financial aspects were consistently given the lowest priority.
© 2025 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-06-01 PubMed ID: 40452182DOI: 10.1111/evj.14537Google 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 research examines equine veterinarians’ views on the importance of seven key aspects of veterinary care in four specific clinical situations. The study revealed that these professionals prioritize the quality of care, service and professionalism, but regard financial aspects as least crucial.

Study Design

  • The research employed a cross-sectional survey design. It aimed to understand and compare equine veterinarians’ attitudes on certain important aspects of their practice, grouped specifically into seven categories: quality of care, service quality, horsemanship, interpersonal aptitudes, knowledge transfer, financial aspects, and professionalism.
  • The study involved four healthcare scenarios: vaccination, colic, lameness, and a pre-purchase situation. These were chosen based on their relevance and frequency encountered in equine veterinary practice.

Data Collection and Analysis

  • A total of 246 equine veterinarians participated in the online survey, which asked them to rank the seven factors in each of the four case scenarios.
  • Statistical analyses, including Friedman tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction, Fisher’s exact test, and Kruskal-Wallis tests, were used to decipher differences within and across scenarios, as well as between different veterinarian groups.

Results

  • The Quality of care was rated the highest in colic and lameness situations, indicating the emergency and critical nature of these conditions.
  • Professionalism was determined significantly more relevant in pre-purchase scenarios, reflecting the need for precise and truthful communication in these situations.
  • Quality of service displayed no variance in ranking across the four scenarios, suggesting a universally high level of importance.
  • Financial aspects, contrastingly, were consistently ranked as the least important across all scenarios, suggesting that other factors take precedence over cost considerations.
  • The study found no differences in priorities between diverse groups of veterinarians, pointing to a general consensus in the profession regarding the significance of these factors.

Limitations and Conclusions

  • As with any study, there are limitations to consider. The participants may not represent the full range of diversity and characteristics inherent to the entire population of equine veterinarians, and the selected scenarios might not capture all possible clinical situations they face.
  • Despite those limitations, the study concludes that equine veterinarians prioritize the quality of care, service, and professionalism in their practice, with some small variations depending on the clinical scenarios. Financial considerations remained a low priority regardless of the case encountered.

Cite This Article

APA
Elte Y, Wolframm I, Vernooij H, Nielen M, van Weeren R. (2025). Equine veterinarians’ care priorities regarding vaccination, colic, lameness and pre-purchase scenarios. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.14537

Publication

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

Researcher Affiliations

Elte, Yteke
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wolframm, Inga
  • Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Velp, The Netherlands.
Vernooij, Hans
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nielen, Mirjam
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Population Health Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
van Weeren, René
  • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

References

This article includes 36 references
  1. Elte Y, Wolframm I, Nielen M, van Weeren R. Client satisfaction in equine veterinary practice: a structured review and qualitative synthesis.. Vet Rec 2021;189(10):e640.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.640google scholar: lookup
  2. Campbell MLH. The role of veterinarians in equestrian sport: a comparative review of ethical issues surrounding human and equine sports medicine.. Vet J 2013;197(3):535–540.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.05.021google scholar: lookup
  3. Pyatt AZ, Walley K, Wright GH, Bleach ECL. Co‐produced care in veterinary services: a qualitative study of UK stakeholders' perspectives.. Vet Sci 2020;7(4):1–15.
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci7040149google scholar: lookup
  4. Elte Y, Acton K, Martin J, Nielen M, van Weeren R, Wolframm I. Engage and enjoy–investigating predictors of employee engagement and work satisfaction in equine veterinary professionals.. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1036388.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1036388google scholar: lookup
  5. 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(11):e4197.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.4197google scholar: lookup
  6. Mellanby RJ, Rhind SM, Bell C, Shaw DJ, Gifford J, Fennell D. Perceptions of clients and veterinarians on what attributes constitute ‘A good vet’.. Vet Rec 2011;168(23):616.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.d925google scholar: lookup
  7. Smith R, Furtado T, Brigden C, Pinchbeck G, Perkins E. A qualitative exploration of UK leisure horse owners' perceptions of equine wellbeing.. Animals 2022;12(21):2937.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12212937google scholar: lookup
  8. Loomans JBA, Waaijer PG, Maree JTM, van Weeren PR, Barneveld A. Quality of equine veterinary care. Part 2: client satisfaction in equine top sports medicine in The Netherlands.. Equine Vet Educ 2009;21(8):421–428.
    doi: 10.2746/095777309x448944google scholar: lookup
  9. Dosek T. Snowball sampling and Facebook: how social media can help access hard‐to‐reach populations.. PS Polit Sci Polit 2021;54(4):651–655.
    doi: 10.1017/s104909652100041xgoogle scholar: lookup
  10. Bambra W, Daly JM, Kendall NR, Gardner DS, Brennan M, Kydd JH. Equine influenza vaccination as reported by horse owners and factors influencing their decision to vaccinate or not.. Prev Vet Med 2020;180:105011.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105011google scholar: lookup
  11. Werner HW. Prepurchase examination in ambulatory equine practice.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2012;28(1):207–247.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2012.03.001google scholar: lookup
  12. Bowden A, Burford J, Brennan M, England G, Freeman S. Emergency conditions in horses: opinions and decision making of livery yard owners.. Vet Evid 2019;4(2).
    doi: 10.18849/ve.v4i2.199google scholar: lookup
  13. Blach EL. Customer Service in Equine Veterinary Medicine.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2009;25:421–432.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2009.07.001google scholar: lookup
  14. Hughes K, Rhind SM, Mossop L, Cobb K, Morley E, Kerrin M. Care about my animal, know your stuff and take me seriously’: United Kingdom and Australian clients' views on the capabilities most important in their veterinarians.. Vet Rec 2018;183(17):534.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104987google scholar: lookup
  15. Loomans JBA, Van Weeren PR, Vaarkamp H, Stolk PWT, Barneveld A. Quality of equine veterinary care: where can it go wrong? A conceptual framework for the quality of equine healthcare, based on court cases against equine practitioners in the Netherlands.. Equine Vet Educ 2008;20(3):159–165.
    doi: 10.2746/095777308x283740google scholar: lookup
  16. Pyatt AZ. Service provision in the animal health sector.. PhD Thesis, Harper University, Edgmond. 2017.
  17. Parasuraman AP, Zeithaml V, Berry L. SERVQUAL: a multiple‐ item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.. J Retail 1988;64(1):12–40.
  18. Pearson G. Practical application of equine learning theory, Part 2.. In Pract 2015;37(6):286–292.
    doi: 10.1136/inp.h2483google scholar: lookup
  19. Pearson G. Managing difficult behaviour in horses.. In Pract 2019;41(7):329–336.
    doi: 10.1136/inp.l4845google scholar: lookup
  20. AAEP. Horse owner/trainer veterinary services survey report of findings.. Lexington, KY: AAEP; 2013.
  21. Adams CL, Ladner L. Implementing a simulated client program: bridging the gap between theory and practice.. J Vet Med Educ 2004;31(2):138–145.
  22. Haldane S, Hinchcliff K, Mansell P, Baik C. Expectations of graduate communication skills in professional veterinary practice.. J Vet Med Educ 2017;44(2):268–279.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.1215-193rgoogle scholar: lookup
  23. Hogg RC, Hodgins GA. Symbiosis or sporting tool? Competition and the horse‐rider relationship in elite equestrian sports.. Animals 2021;11(5):1352.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051352google scholar: lookup
  24. Armitage‐Chan E, May SA. The veterinary identity: a time and context model.. J Vet Med Educ 2019;46(2):153–162.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0517-067r1google scholar: lookup
  25. Burrell KL, Burford JH, England GCW, Freeman SL. UK horse owners and veterinary practitioners' experiences of decision‐making for critical cases of colic.. Equine Vet J 2024;56(6):1216–1228.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14124google scholar: lookup
  26. Krosnick JA. Survey research.. Annu Rev Psychol 1999;50:537–567.
  27. Leary MR, Allen AB, Terry ML. Managing social images in naturalistic versus laboratory settings: implications for understanding and studying self‐presentation.. Eur J Soc Psychol 2011;41(4):411–421.
    doi: 10.1002/ejsp.813google scholar: lookup
  28. Murray B. Rising costs – and vet bills – the top concerns for horse owners.. Horse Hound 2022.
  29. Murray B. ‘It's a false economy’: owners urged not to scrimp on horse care as cost of living crisis continues.. Horse Hound 2024.
  30. Pferde.de. Neue Tierarztkosten – ein Schock für Pferdebesitzer.. PferdeDe 2023.
  31. Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning.. J Consum Res 1993;20(2):303–315.
    doi: 10.1086/209351google scholar: lookup
  32. Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner‐pet and client‐veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;232(4):531–540.
  33. Mossop LH. Is it time to define veterinary professionalism?. J Vet Med Educ 2012;39(1):93–100.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0411.041r1google scholar: lookup
  34. Best C, Coe JB, Hewson J, Meehan M, Kelton D, Black B. Referring equine veterinarians' expectations of equine veterinary specialists and referral centers.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253(4):479–489.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.253.4.479google scholar: lookup
  35. Best C, Coe JB, Hewson J, Meehan M, Kelton D. Survey of equine referring veterinarians' satisfaction with their Most recent equine referral experience.. J Vet Intern Med 2018;32(2):822–831.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15053google scholar: lookup
  36. May S. Towards a scholarship of primary health care.. Vet Rec 2015;176(26):677–682.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.