FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
BMC veterinary research2024; 20(1); 347; doi: 10.1186/s12917-024-04211-8

“How long is life worth living for the horse?” A focus group study on how Austrian equine stakeholders assess quality of life for chronically ill or old horses.

Abstract: Quality of life (QoL) provides a comprehensive concept underpinning veterinary decision-making that encompasses factors beyond physical health. It becomes particularly pertinent when seeking responsible choices for chronically ill or old horses that emphasise their well-being and a good QoL over the extension of life. How different stakeholders use the concept of QoL is highly relevant when considering the complexity of these decisions in real-life situations. Methods: Seven focus group discussions (N = 39) were conducted to gain insights into how stakeholders assess and use equine QoL in veterinary care decisions for chronically ill and/or old horses. The discussions included horse owners (n = 17), equine veterinarians (n = 7), veterinary officers (n = 6), farriers (n = 4), and horse caregivers (n = 5). The combination of deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis of the group discussions focused on identifying both similarities and differences in the views of these groups regarding QoL for old and/or chronically ill horses. Results: Findings show agreement about two issues: the importance of the individuality of the horse for assessing QoL and the relevance of QoL in making decisions about veterinary interventions. We identified differences between the groups with respect to three issues: the time required to assess QoL, stakeholders' contributions to QoL assessments, and challenges resulting from those contributions. While owners and caregivers of horses emphasised their knowledge of a horse and the relevance of the time they spend with their horse, the veterinarians in the study focused on the differences between their own QoL assessments and those of horse owners. In response to challenges regarding QoL assessments and decision-making, stakeholders described different strategies such as drawing comparisons to human experiences. Conclusions: Differences between stakeholders regarding equine QoL assessments contribute to challenges when making decisions about the care of chronically ill or old horses. The results of this study suggest that individual and collaborative reflection about a horse's QoL should be encouraged, for example by developing practicable QoL assessment tools that support relevant stakeholders in this process.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-08-06 PubMed ID: 39107791PubMed Central: PMC11302025DOI: 10.1186/s12917-024-04211-8Google 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 study investigates how stakeholders in Austria perceive and assess the quality of life for chronically ill or elderly horses, with a specific focus on veterinary decision-making. The research includes the perspectives of horse owners, equine veterinarians, veterinary officers, farriers, and horse caregivers.

Methodology

  • Seven focus groups were formed – consisting of horse owners (n = 17), equine veterinarians (n = 7), veterinary officers (n = 6), farriers (n = 4), and horse caregivers (n = 5), for a total of 39 participants.
  • The researchers aimed to understand how these stakeholders evaluate and apply the concept of quality of life in care decisions for elderly or sick horses.
  • Qualitative content analysis, both deductive and inductive, was executed on the discussions to find commonalities and differences between the groups’ viewpoints on what equates to a good quality of life for old or ill horses.

Results

  • There was a consensus about the importance of considering the individuality of the horse for assessing its quality of life and the relevance of this assessment in making decisions on veterinary interventions.
  • Contrasts between the groups arose in three areas: the time required to evaluate quality of life, the contributions of different stakeholders to this assessment, and the resulting challenges.
  • Owners and caregivers highlighted their understanding of the horse and the time they spend with it, while veterinarians emphasized the distinction between their quality of life evaluations and those of the horse owners.
  • The stakeholders mentioned various strategies to overcome the challenges related to quality of life assessments and decision-making, including reflecting human experiences on horses.

Conclusions

  • The findings show that the disagreement between stakeholders on assessing the quality of life of horses creates challenges in making care decisions for chronically ill or old equine.
  • The study suggests promoting individual and collaborative reflection on a horse’s quality of life. This could include the creation and use of practicable assessment tools that facilitate stakeholders in evaluating the horse’s wellbeing accurately and consistently.

Cite This Article

APA
Long M, Grimm H, Jenner F, Cavalleri JV, Springer S. (2024). “How long is life worth living for the horse?” A focus group study on how Austrian equine stakeholders assess quality of life for chronically ill or old horses. BMC Vet Res, 20(1), 347. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-024-04211-8

Publication

BMC veterinary research
ISSN: 1746-6148
NlmUniqueID: 101249759
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 20
Issue: 1
Pages: 347

Researcher Affiliations

Long, Mariessa
  • Messerli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria. mariessa.long@vetmeduni.ac.at.
Grimm, Herwig
  • Messerli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Jenner, Florien
  • Equine Surgery Unit, Clinical Centre for Equine Health and Research, Clinical Department for Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Cavalleri, Jessika-M V
  • Equine Internal Medicine Unit, Clinical Centre for Equine Health and Research, Clinical Department for Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Springer, Svenja
  • Messerli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Horses / psychology
  • Quality of Life
  • Focus Groups
  • Chronic Disease / psychology
  • Horse Diseases / psychology
  • Veterinarians / psychology
  • Humans
  • Austria
  • Male
  • Female
  • Decision Making

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 78 references
  1. Hotchkiss JW, Reid SWJ, Christley RM. A survey of horse owners in Great Britain regarding horses in their care. Part 1: horse demographic characteristics and management.. Equine Vet J 2007;39(4):294–300.
    doi: 10.2746/042516407X177538pubmed: 17722719google scholar: lookup
  2. Slater J. National Equine Health Survey (NEHS) 2018. Blue Cross for Pets 2018.
  3. McGowan TW, Phillips CJC, Hodgson DR, Perkins N, McGowan CM. Euthanasia in aged horses: relationship between the owner’s personality and their opinions on, and experience of, euthanasia of horses.. Anthrozoös 2012;25(3):261–75.
    doi: 10.2752/175303712X13403555186091google scholar: lookup
  4. McGowan CM, Ireland JL. Welfare, quality of life, and euthanasia of aged horses.. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2016;32(2):355–67.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2016.04.011pubmed: 27449393google scholar: lookup
  5. Clough H, Roshier M, England G, Burford J, Freeman S. Qualitative study of the influence of horse-owner relationship during some key events within a horse’s lifetime.. Vet Rec 2021;188(6):e79.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.79pubmed: 33739494google scholar: lookup
  6. Ballou ME, Mueller MK, Dowling-Guyer S. Aging equines: understanding the experience of caring for a geriatric horse with a chronic condition.. J Equine Vet Sci 2020;90:102993.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102993pubmed: 32534771google scholar: lookup
  7. Ireland J, Clegg P, McGowan C, Duncan J, McCall S, Platt L. Owners’ perceptions of quality of life in geriatric horses: a cross-sectional study.. Anim Welf 2011;20(4):483–95.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600003122google scholar: lookup
  8. Clough H, Roshier M, England G, Burford J, Freeman S. Cross-sectional study of UK horse owner’s purchase and euthanasia decision‐making for their horse.. Vet Rec 2021;188(6):e56.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.56pubmed: 33739499google scholar: lookup
  9. Ireland J, Clegg P, McGowan C, Platt L, Pinchbeck G. Factors associated with mortality of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Prev Vet Med 2011;101(3–4):204–18.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.06.002pubmed: 21733586google scholar: lookup
  10. Pollard D, Wylie CE, Newton JR, Verheyen KLP. Factors associated with euthanasia in horses and ponies enrolled in a laminitis cohort study in Great Britain.. Prev Vet Med 2020;174:104833.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104833pubmed: 31751854google scholar: lookup
  11. Broom D. Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed?. Anim Welf 2007;16(S):45–53.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031729google scholar: lookup
  12. McMillan FD, Yeates JW. The problems with well-being terminology.. 2020. In: McMillan FD, editor. Mental health and well-being in animals. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International; pp. 8–20.
  13. Mullan S. Assessment of quality of life in veterinary practice: developing tools for companion animal carers and veterinarians.. Vet Med (Auckl) 2015;6:203–10.
    pmc: PMC6070017pubmed: 30101107
  14. Wojciechowska JI, Hewson CJ. Quality-of-life assessment in pet dogs.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226(5):722–28.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2005.226.722pubmed: 15776944google scholar: lookup
  15. Yeates JW. Quality of life of animals in veterinary medical practice.. 2020. In: McMillan FD, editor. Mental health and well-being in animals. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International; pp. 82–95.
  16. Belshaw Z, Yeates J. Assessment of quality of life and chronic pain in dogs.. Vet J 2018;239:59–64.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.07.010pubmed: 30197111google scholar: lookup
  17. Taylor K, Mills D. Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals?. Anim Welf 2007;16(S):55–65.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031730google scholar: lookup
  18. Hall C, Randle H, Pearson G, Preshaw L, Waran N. Assessing equine emotional state.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2018;205:183–93.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.03.006google scholar: lookup
  19. FEI Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission. A GOOD LIFE FOR HORSES A vision for the future involvement of horses in sport - Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission Final Report to the FEI Board.. 2023.
  20. Furtado T, Preshaw L, Hockenhull J, Wathan J, Douglas J, Horseman S. 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
  21. Horseman SV, Hockenhull J, Buller H, Mullan S, Barr ARS, Whay HR. Equine welfare assessment: exploration of British stakeholder attitudes using focus-group discussions.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2017;20(2):176–91.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2017.1283226pubmed: 28375757google scholar: lookup
  22. Parker RA, Yeates JW. Assessment of quality of life in equine patients.. Equine Vet J 2012;44(2):244–9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00411.xpubmed: 21767299google scholar: lookup
  23. 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(5):1309.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11051309pmc: PMC8147395pubmed: 34063176google scholar: lookup
  24. 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/ani12212937pmc: PMC9654126pubmed: 36359063google scholar: lookup
  25. 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(Suppl 1):S1.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-S1-S1pmc: PMC4122872pubmed: 25238026google scholar: lookup
  26. Visser EK, Van Wijk-Jansen EEC. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: an explorative study.. J Vet Behav 2012;7(5):295–304.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  27. Mueller MK, Sween C, Frank N, Paradis MR. Survey of human-horse relationships and veterinary care for geriatric horses.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2018;253(3):337–45.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.253.3.337pubmed: 30019999google scholar: lookup
  28. 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(4):752–62.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13360pubmed: 33002214google scholar: lookup
  29. University of Bristol, World Horse Welfare, Bristol Equine Welfare Project. Horses in Our Hands. University of Bristol 2016.
  30. Rioja-Lang FC, Connor M, Bacon H, Dwyer CM. Determining a welfare prioritization for horses using a Delphi method.. Animals 2020;10(4):647.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040647pmc: PMC7222753pubmed: 32283607google scholar: lookup
  31. 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):490–490.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105964pmc: PMC7848064pubmed: 32631849google scholar: lookup
  32. 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(1):9–23.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1197776pubmed: 27414640google scholar: lookup
  33. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, McKane SA, Chandler KJ, Pinchbeck GL. Comparison of owner-reported health problems with veterinary assessment of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom.. Equine Vet J 2012;44(1):94–100.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00394.xpubmed: 21696434google scholar: lookup
  34. Ireland JL, Clegg PD, McGowan CM, McKane SA, Pinchbeck GL. A cross-sectional study of geriatric horses in the United Kingdom. Part 2: Health care and disease.. Equine Vet J 2011;43(1):37–44.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00142.xpubmed: 21143632google scholar: lookup
  35. McGowan T, Pinchbeck G, Phillips C, Perkins N, Hodgson D, McGowan C. A survey of aged horses in Queensland, Australia. Part 2: clinical signs and owners’ perceptions of health and welfare.. Aust Vet J 2010;88(12):465–71.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2010.00638.xpubmed: 21091457google scholar: lookup
  36. Bell C, Rogers S, Taylor J, Busby D. Improving the recognition of equine affective states.. Animals 2019;9(12):1124.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121124pmc: PMC6941154pubmed: 31835886google scholar: lookup
  37. Lesimple C, Hausberger M. How accurate are we at assessing others’ well-being? The example of welfare assessment in horses.. Front Psychol 2014;5:21.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00021pmc: PMC3900850pubmed: 24478748google scholar: lookup
  38. Hockenhull J, Creighton E. A brief note on the information-seeking behavior of UK leisure horse owners.. J Vet Behav 2013;8(2):106–10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2012.04.002google scholar: lookup
  39. Batchelor CEM, McKeegan DEF. Survey of the frequency and perceived stressfulness of ethical dilemmas encountered in UK veterinary practice.. Vet Rec 2012;170(1):19.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.100262pubmed: 22084032google scholar: lookup
  40. Kipperman B, Morris P, Rollin B. Ethical dilemmas encountered by small animal veterinarians: Characterisation, responses, consequences and beliefs regarding euthanasia.. Vet Rec 2018;182(19):548–548.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104619pubmed: 29445010google scholar: lookup
  41. Birke L, Hockenhull J, Creighton E. The horse’s tale: narratives of caring for/about horses.. Soc Anim 2010;18(4):331–47.
    doi: 10.1163/156853010X524307google scholar: lookup
  42. 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(14):1822.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141822pmc: PMC9311870pubmed: 35883370google scholar: lookup
  43. McMillan F. Predicting quality of life outcomes as a guide for decision-making: the challenge of hitting a moving target.. Anim Welf 2007;16(S):135–42.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600031845google scholar: lookup
  44. 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(4):134.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9040134pmc: PMC6523604pubmed: 30935137google scholar: lookup
  45. DuBois C, Hambly Odame H, Haley DB, Merkies K. An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique.. PLoS ONE 2018;13(7):e0201363.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201363pmc: PMC6066239pubmed: 30059509google scholar: lookup
  46. 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.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160269pmc: PMC4976980pubmed: 27501387google scholar: lookup
  47. McGowan C. Welfare of aged horses.. Animals 2011;1:366–76.
    doi: 10.3390/ani1040366pmc: PMC4513472pubmed: 26486621google scholar: lookup
  48. Brosnahan MM, Paradis MR. Demographic and clinical characteristics of geriatric horses: 467 cases (1989–1999).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;223(1):93–8.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.93pubmed: 12839071google scholar: lookup
  49. Herbst A, Coleman M, Macon E, Harris PA, Adams AA. 122 US senior horses: when are they considered “old” and how does that affect their management?. J Equine Vet Sci 2023;124:104424.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104424google scholar: lookup
  50. Tran B, Rafinejad-Farahani B, Moodie S, O’Hagan R, Glista D. A scoping review of virtual focus group methods used in rehabilitation sciences.. Int J Qual Methods 2021;20:1–18.
    doi: 10.1177/16094069211042227google scholar: lookup
  51. Tuttas CA. Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews.. Qual Health Res 2015;25(1):122–33.
    pubmed: 25192765
  52. Williams SN, Armitage CJ, Tampe T, Dienes K. Public perceptions and experiences of social distancing and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a UK-based focus group study.. BMJ Open 2020;10:e039334.
    doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039334pmc: PMC7387310pubmed: 32690752google scholar: lookup
  53. Kite J, Phongsavan P. Insights for conducting real-time focus groups online using a web conferencing service.. F1000Res 2017;6:122.
    doi: 10.12688/f1000research.10427.2pmc: PMC5527981pubmed: 28781752google scholar: lookup
  54. Dresing T, Pehl T. Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse: Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende.. 2018. 8th ed. Marburg: Eigenverlag.
  55. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook.. 2020. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  56. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing style of interpretation.. 1999. In: Crabtree BF, Miller WL, editors. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; pp. 163–78.
  57. Fife ST, Gossner JD. Deductive qualitative analysis: evaluating, expanding, and refining theory.. Int J Qual Methods 2024;23.
  58. Smith DR, Leggat PA, Speare R, Townley-Jones M. Examining the dimensions and correlates of workplace stress among Australian veterinarians.. J Occup Med Toxicol 2009;4:32.
    doi: 10.1186/1745-6673-4-32pmc: PMC2797516pubmed: 19995450google scholar: lookup
  59. Moses L, Malowney MJ, Boyd JW. Ethical conflict and moral distress in veterinary practice: a survey of north American veterinarians.. J Vet Intern Med 2018;32(6):2115–22.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15315pmc: PMC6271308pubmed: 30320478google scholar: lookup
  60. O’Connor E. Sources of work stress in veterinary practice in the UK.. Vet Rec 2019;184(19):588–588.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104662pubmed: 31023870google scholar: lookup
  61. Dürnberger C. It’s not about ethical dilemmas: a survey of bavarian veterinary officers’ opinions on moral challenges and an e-learning ethics course.. J Agric Environ Ethics 2019;32:891–903.
    doi: 10.1007/s10806-019-09805-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  62. 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(6):1094–102.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13559pubmed: 35034381google scholar: lookup
  63. Browning H. If I Could Talk to the Animals: Measuring Subjective Animal Welfare.. Dissertation, Australian National University 2020;176–80.
  64. Grimm H, Bergadano A, Musk GC, Otto K, Taylor PM, Duncan JC. Drawing the line in clinical treatment of companion animals: recommendations from an ethics working party.. Vet Rec 2018;182(23):664.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104559pmc: PMC6035488pubmed: 29602799google scholar: lookup
  65. Cameron A, Pollock K, Wilson E, Burford J, England G, Freeman S. Scoping review of end-of-life decision-making models used in dogs, cats and equids.. Vet Rec 2022;191(4):e1730.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.1730pubmed: 35703328google scholar: lookup
  66. Herfen K, Kunzmann P, Palm J, Ratsch H, sowie praktizierende und amtliche Kollegen. Entscheidungshilfe zur Euthanasie von Klein- und Heimtieren.. Kleintier Konkret 2018;21:35–40.
    doi: 10.1055/s-0043-120777google scholar: lookup
  67. Yeates JW. When to euthanase.. Vet Rec 2010;166:370–1.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.c226pubmed: 20305297google scholar: lookup
  68. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference?. PharmacoEconomics 2016;34:6459.
    doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9pubmed: 26892973google scholar: lookup
  69. Monsó S. How to tell if animals can understand death.. Erkenntnis 2019;87:117–36.
    doi: 10.1007/s10670-019-00187-2pmc: PMC8789628pubmed: 35125561google scholar: lookup
  70. Monsó S, Osuna-Mascaró AJ. Death is common, so is understanding it: the concept of death in other species.. Synthese 2021;199:2251–75.
    doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02882-ypmc: PMC8602129pubmed: 34866663google scholar: lookup
  71. Mota-Rojas D, Mariti C, Zdeinert A, Riggio G, Mora-Medina P, del Mar Reyes A. Anthropomorphism and its adverse effects on the distress and welfare of companion animals.. Animals 2021;11(11):3263.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11113263pmc: PMC8614365pubmed: 34827996google scholar: lookup
  72. Rollin BE. Euthanasia, moral stress, and chronic illness in veterinary medicine.. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2011;41:651–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.03.005pubmed: 21601753google scholar: lookup
  73. Corr SA, Palmer C, Sandøe P. Encouraging self-reflection by veterinary clinicians: Ethics on the clinic floor.. Am J Bioeth 2018;18(2):55–7.
    doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1409843pubmed: 29393794google scholar: lookup
  74. Smith R, Pinchbeck G, Mcgowan C, Ireland J, Perkins L. Becoming a matter of veterinary concern.. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1355996.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1355996pmc: PMC11169876pubmed: 38872799google scholar: lookup
  75. Lin JL, Clark CL, Halpern-Felsher B, Bennett PN, Assis-Hassid S, Amir O, Nunez YC, Cleary NM, Gehrmann S, Grosz BJ, Sanders LM. Parent perspectives in shared decision-making for children with medical complexity.. Acad Pediatr 2020;20(8):1101–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.06.008pmc: PMC7655593pubmed: 32540424google scholar: lookup
  76. David M, Sutton CD. Social research: an introduction.. 2011. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; pp. 131–45. Chapter 7, Focus groups.
  77. Lamnek S, Krell C. Qualitative Sozialforschung.. 2016. 6th ed. Weinheim Basel: Beltz; pp. 384–446. Chapter 9, Gruppendiskussion.
  78. Austrian Animal Protection Law. Bundesgesetz über den Schutz der Tiere (Tierschutzgesetz—TSchG).. Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes 4 September 2023.

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Kelemen Z, Vogl C, Torres Borda L, Auer U, Jenner F. Indicators of mortality risk in ageing horses. Geroscience 2025 Oct;47(5):6533-6547.
    doi: 10.1007/s11357-025-01738-ypubmed: 40555923google scholar: lookup
  2. Bouquet A, Nicol C, Knowles EJ, Schofield I, Menzies-Gow NJ. Development of a health-related quality-of-life assessment tool for equines with pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction. Equine Vet J 2026 Jan;58(1):190-202.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14513pubmed: 40314080google scholar: lookup
  3. Cameron A, Geldard M, Mair T, England G, Burford J, Freeman S, Pollock K, Wilson E. Experiences of End-of-Life Decision-Making in Equine Veterinary and Charity Teams. Animals (Basel) 2025 Feb 26;15(5).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15050678pubmed: 40075960google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,658 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.