FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2026; doi: 10.1002/evj.70170

Impact of evidence-based information on horse owners’ misconceptions of colic.

Abstract: Misconceptions can be defined as 'false, persistent beliefs' or 'inaccurate, prior knowledge' and can influence decision-making. Objective: To investigate the impact of evidence-based information on UK horse owners' decision-making for colic. Methods: Mixed-methods cross-sectional study. Methods: An online survey was distributed to UK horse owners, with four sections: owner demographics; views on decision-making and referral to an equine hospital facility for colic; current knowledge and approach to colic; impact of evidence-based information (including evidence on recognising and responding to colic, and colic surgery survival and outcome data) on decision-making. Statistical analysis was performed using Kendall's tau for continuous variables and Chi-squared testing for categorical variables. Multivariable analysis was performed using a generalised linear model with binomial distribution (logistic regression), with p < 0.05 for model fit. Content analysis was used for free-text answers. Results: In total, 1544 participants met inclusion criteria. Owners were more likely to agree to referral if their horse was insured (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-2.93), and less likely if their horse was older (p < 0.001, CI: 0.90-0.94) or they felt pressure (p < 0.001, CI: 0.44-0.70). Pressure to refer was mainly from veterinary professionals (66%, 367/549) or peers (20%, 110/549). Many participants were unaware of how quickly irreversible intestinal damage could occur (58%, 903/1544), costs of colic surgery and UK insurance cover limits (63%, 966/1544), post-operative survival rates for geriatric vs. non-geriatric horses (65%; 996/1544), or prognosis for return to work following colic surgery (68%, 1052/1544). Sharing evidence-based information had limited impact on decision-making. Free text response analysis identified previous experience of colic, anecdotal information, finances and peer pressures as barriers to change. Conclusions: Potential for response bias, UK participants only. Conclusions: Misconceptions around colic were common, with many horse owners reluctant to change their approach after evidence-based information. Intent to pursue referral was less likely with increasing horse age and perceived pressure to refer. Unassigned: Fehlvorstellungen können als “falsche, persistierende Überzeugungen” oder als “ungenaues Vorwissen” definiert werden und können Entscheidungsprozesse beeinflussen. Unassigned: Untersuchung des Einflusses evidenzbasierter Informationen auf die Entscheidungsfindung von Pferdebesitzern in Großbritannien bei Kolikerkrankungen. Methods: Mixed‐Methods‐Querschnittsstudie. Methods: Eine Online‐Umfrage wurde unter Pferdebesitzern in Großbritannien durchgeführt und umfasste vier Abschnitte: Demografie der Besitzer; Einstellungen zur Entscheidungsfindung und Überweisung bei Kolik; aktuelles Wissen und Vorgehen bei Kolik; Einfluss evidenzbasierter Informationen (einschließlich Informationen zur Erkennung und zum Umgang mit Kolik sowie Überlebens‐ und Outcome‐Daten zur Kolikchirurgie) auf die Entscheidungsfindung. Die statistische Analyse erfolgte mittels Kendall's Tau für kontinuierliche Variablen und Chi‐Quadrat‐Tests für kategoriale Variablen. Eine multivariable Analyse wurde mit einem generalisierten linearen Modell mit binomialer Verteilung (logistische Regression) durchgeführt; p < 0,05 wurde als Kriterium für Modellanpassung verwendet. Für Freitextantworten wurde eine Inhaltsanalyse durchgeführt. Unassigned: Insgesamt erfüllten 1544 Teilnehmende die Einschlusskriterien. Besitzer stimmten einer Überweisung eher zu, wenn ihr Pferd versichert war (p < 0,001; 95% KI: 1,86–2,93), und weniger häufig, wenn ihr Pferd älter war (p < 0,001; KI: 0,90–0,94) oder wenn sie Druck empfanden (p < 0,001; KI: 0,44–0,70). Der Druck zur Überweisung kam hauptsächlich von Tierärzten (66%, 367/549) oder von Gleichgesinnten (20%, 110/549). Viele Teilnehmer wussten nicht, wie schnell irreversible Darmschäden auftreten können (58%, 903/1544), kannten weder die Kosten einer Kolikoperation noch die Deckungsgrenzen britischer Versicherungen (63%, 966/1544), die postoperativen Überlebensraten bei geriatrischen im Vergleich zu nicht‐geriatrischen Pferden (65%, 996/1544) oder die Prognose für eine Rückkehr zur Arbeit nach einer Kolikoperation (68%, 1052/1544). Das Teilen evidenzbasierter Informationen hatte nur begrenzten Einfluss auf die Entscheidungsfindung. Die Analyse der Freitextantworten identifizierte frühere Kolikerfahrungen, anekdotische Informationen, finanzielle Faktoren und sozialen Druck als Barrieren für Veränderungen. Unassigned: Mögliches Antwortbias; ausschließlich Teilnehmende aus Großbritannien. Unassigned: Fehlvorstellungen über Kolik waren häufig, und viele Pferdebesitzer waren trotz evidenzbasierter Informationen nur begrenzt bereit, ihr Vorgehen zu ändern. Die Bereitschaft zu einer Überweisung nahm mit zunehmendem Alter des Pferdes sowie bei wahrgenommenem Druck zur Überweisung ab.
© 2026 The Author(s). Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2026-04-22 PubMed ID: 42018127DOI: 10.1002/evj.70170Google 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.

Overview

  • This study investigated how providing evidence-based information affects UK horse owners’ misconceptions and decision-making about colic, a common and serious equine health issue.
  • The research explored owners’ knowledge gaps, the influence of various factors on their choices to seek veterinary referral, and identified barriers to changing their decisions despite new information.

Background and Rationale

  • Misconceptions Defined: Misconceptions refer to false or inaccurate prior beliefs that persist over time and can significantly affect decision-making processes.
  • Colic Context: Colic is a serious condition in horses involving abdominal pain often linked to potentially life-threatening intestinal issues requiring urgent care.
  • Decision-Making Importance: Horse owners’ decisions to seek medical treatment or surgery for colic directly impact horse welfare and outcomes.

Study Objective

  • To assess the impact of sharing evidence-based information about colic recognition, urgency, surgery outcomes, and insurance considerations on the decision-making of UK horse owners.

Methods

  • Design: Mixed-methods cross-sectional study, incorporating quantitative survey data and qualitative free-text responses.
  • Participants: 1544 UK horse owners who met inclusion criteria completed the online survey.
  • Survey Sections:
    • Owner demographics
    • Attitudes towards decision-making about referral to equine hospitals
    • Current knowledge and typical approach to colic
    • Impact of evidence-based information on their decisions
  • Statistical Analysis:
    • Kendall’s tau for continuous variables
    • Chi-square tests for categorical variables
    • Generalised linear model with binomial distribution (logistic regression) to analyze factors influencing referral intent
    • A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was used
  • Qualitative Analysis: Content analysis of free-text answers identified themes around barriers to changing decision-making.

Key Findings

  • Influence on Referral Decisions:
    • Horse insurance strongly increased likelihood of agreeing to referral (significant p-value < 0.001, OR range 1.86–2.93).
    • Older horse age decreased likelihood of referral (p < 0.001, OR 0.90–0.94), indicating owners may be less willing to pursue costly treatment with aging animals.
    • Perceived pressure to refer surprisingly reduced owner intent (p < 0.001, OR 0.44–0.70), with pressure mainly coming from veterinarians (66%) and peers (20%).
  • Common Knowledge Gaps and Misconceptions:
    • 58% of owners unaware of how quickly irreversible intestinal damage can occur.
    • 63% lacked accurate knowledge about colic surgery costs and typical limits of UK insurance cover.
    • 65% were unaware of different postoperative survival rates between geriatric and non-geriatric horses.
    • 68% did not know prognosis for horses returning to work after colic surgery.
  • Impact of Evidence-Based Information:
    • Providing detailed evidence had limited effect on changing owners’ likelihood to pursue referral or alter their approach.
  • Barriers to Changing Decisions (Qualitative Insights):
    • Previous personal experience with colic strongly influenced decisions.
    • Anecdotal information and experiences shared within the community affected perception.
    • Financial concerns including worries over treatment costs and insurance limitations.
    • Social and peer pressures, including advice from veterinarians and fellow horse owners.

Conclusions

  • Misconceptions about colic are widespread among UK horse owners, with major gaps in understanding risk timelines, costs, insurance, and outcomes.
  • Many owners were resistant to changing their decision-making even when presented with reliable evidence-based information.
  • Older horse age and perceived pressure to refer could paradoxically reduce the likelihood that owners opt for veterinary referral.
  • Veterinary professionals and peers exerted significant influence, but this pressure sometimes discouraged referral rather than encouraging it, suggesting complex social dynamics.
  • Education alone may be insufficient; addressing emotional, experiential, financial, and social factors is necessary to help owners make more informed colic decisions.

Limitations

  • The sample included only UK horse owners, so results may not generalize internationally.
  • Potential response bias because data was self-reported and respondents volunteered to participate.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

  • Improving knowledge about colic must go beyond simply sharing facts; communication strategies should consider previous experiences, anecdotal beliefs, and social pressures.
  • Veterinarians may need to develop more nuanced approaches to encourage timely referral, especially for older horses.
  • Future studies could test interventions addressing emotional and financial concerns to enhance decision-making quality in equine colic cases.

Cite This Article

APA
Burrell KL, England GCW, Burford JH, Freeman SL. (2026). Impact of evidence-based information on horse owners’ misconceptions of colic. Equine Vet J. https://doi.org/10.1002/evj.70170

Publication

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

Researcher Affiliations

Burrell, K L
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.
England, G C W
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.
Burford, J H
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.
Freeman, S L
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Leicestershire, UK.

Grant Funding

  • World Horse Welfare
  • University of Nottingham

References

This article includes 45 references
  1. Karlova NA, Fisher KE. A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour. Inflamm Res 2013;18(1).
  2. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 1948;27(3):379–423.
  3. Tuominen K, Savolainen R. A social constructionist approach to the study of information use as discursive action. 1997;p. 81–96.
  4. . Misinformation. Oxford English dictionary .
  5. Taylor AK, Kowalski P. Student misconceptions: where do they come from and what can we do?. 2014;p. 259–273.
  6. Lightfoot KL, Frost E, Burford JH, England GCW, Freeman SL. Use of human behaviour change models to investigate horse owner intention to adopt emergency colic recommendations. Equine Vet J 2024;56(1):147–158.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13955google scholar: lookup
  7. Cook VL, Hassel DM. Evaluation of the colic in horses: decision for referral. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2014;30:383–398.
  8. Pratt S, Hassel D, Drake C, Snyder J. Clinical characteristics of horses with gastrointestinal ruptures revealed during initial diagnostic evaluation: 149 cases (1990–2002). Proc Am Ass Equine Practnrs 2003;49:366–370.
  9. Wild IV, Burford JH, England GCW, Bowen M, Freeman SL. Delphi consensus study on the primary assessment of horses with clinical signs of colic. Equine Vet J 2017;49:14.
  10. Yeoman S, Bowden A, Burford JH, England GCW, Freeman SL. Horse owners' opinion on the recognition and diagnosis of colic: outcomes from a Delphi consensus process. Equine Vet Educ 2017;29:33.
  11. Hackett ES, Embertson RM, Hopper SA, Woodie JB, Ruggles AJ. Duration of disease influences survival to discharge of Thoroughbred mares with surgically treated large colon volvulus. Equine Vet J 2015;47:650–654.
  12. Barker I, Freeman SL. Assessment of costs and insurance policies for referral treatment of equine colic. Vet Rec 2019;185(16):508.
  13. Southwood L, Gassert T, Lindborg S. Colic in geriatric compared to mature nongeriatric horses. Part 2: treatment, diagnosis and short‐term survival. Equine Vet J 2010;42:628–635.
  14. Christophersen MT, Tnibar A, Pihl TH, Andersen PH, Ekstrom CT. Sporting activity following colic surgery in horses: a retrospective study. Equine Vet J 2011;43(S40):3–6.
  15. Mair TS, Smith LJ. Survival and complication rates in 300 horses undergoing surgical treatment of colic. Part 3: long‐term complications and survival. Equine Vet J 2005;37(4):310–314.
  16. Van den Boom R, Van der Velden MA. Short‐ and long‐term evaluation of surgical treatment of strangulating obstructions of the small intestine in horses: a review of 224 cases. Vet Q 2001;23(3):109–115.
  17. Davis W, Fogle CA, Gerard MP, Levine JF, Blikslager AT. Return to use and performance following exploratory celiotomy for colic in horses: 195 cases (2003–2010). Equine Vet J 2013;45(2):224–228.
  18. Hart SK, Southwood LL, Aceto HW. Impact of colic surgery on return to function in racing thoroughbreds: 59 cases (1996–2009). JAVMA 2014;244(2):205–211.
  19. Tomlinson JE, Boston RC, Brauer T. Evaluation of racing performance after colic surgery in Thoroughbreds: 85 cases (1996–2010). JAVMA 2013;243:532–537.
  20. Bowden A, Burford JH, Brennan ML, England GCW, Freeman SL. Horse owners' knowledge, and opinions on recognising colic in the horse. Equine Vet J 2020;52(2):262–267.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13173google scholar: lookup
  21. Hotchkiss JW, Reid SW, 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.
  22. Bradburn NM, Sudman S, Blair E, Stocking C. Question threat and response bias. Public Opin Q 1978;42(2):221–234.
  23. Schuman H, Presser S. The open and closed question. Am Sociol Rev 1979;44:692–712.
  24. Taylor AK, Kowalski P. Naive psychological science: the prevalence, strength, and sources of misconceptions. Psychol Rec 2004;54(1):15–25.
  25. Bowden A, England GCW, Brennan ML, Mair TS, Furness WA, Freeman SL. Indicators of “critical” outcomes in 941 horses seen “out‐of‐hours” for colic. Vet Rec 2020;187(12):492.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.105881google scholar: lookup
  26. Curtis L, Burford JH, Thomas JSM, Curran ML, Bayes TC, England GCW. Prospective study of the primary evaluation of 1016 horses with clinical signs of abdominal pain by veterinary practitioners, and the differentiation of critical and non‐critical cases. Acta Vet Scand 2015;57(1):69.
  27. Newman MG, Llera SJ. A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: a review and synthesis of research supporting a contrast avoidance model of worry. Clin Psychol Rev 2011;31(3):371–382.
  28. Kortte KB, Wegener ST. Denial of illness in medical rehabilitation populations: theory, research, and definition. Rehabil Psychol 2004;49(3):187–199.
  29. Croog SH, Shapiro DS, Levine S. Denial among male heart patients: an empirical study. Psychosom Med 1971;33(5):385–397.
    doi: 10.1097/00006842-197109000-00001google scholar: lookup
  30. Shaw RE, Cohen F, Doyle B, Palesky J. The impact of denial and repressive style on information gain and rehabilitation outcomes in myocardial infarction patients. Psychosom Med 1985;47(3):262–273.
    doi: 10.1097/00006842-198505000-00004google scholar: lookup
  31. Gray C, Moffett J. Handbook of veterinary communication skills. Oxford: Wiley‐Blackwell; 2013.
  32. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;109(1):1–24.
  33. Freeman DE. Fifty years of colic surgery. Equine Vet J 2018;50(4):423–435.
  34. Burrell K, Sutton Walker G, England GCW, Burford JH, Freeman SL. Prospective case study of critical decision making for horses referred for treatment of colic. Vet Rec 2023;194:e3615.
    doi: 10.1002/vetr.3615google scholar: lookup
  35. Wilson FE, Mair TS, Freeman SL. Cost of referral treatment for colic in the United Kingdom—what has changed in the last 5 years?. Equine Vet J 2025;1–9.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.70074google scholar: lookup
  36. Mair TS, Smith LJ. Survival and complication rates in 300 horses undergoing surgical treatment of colic. Part 1: short‐term survival following a single laparotomy. Equine Vet J 2005;37(4):296–302.
  37. Proudman C, Dugdale A, Senior J, Edwards G, Smith J, Leuwer M. Pre‐operative and anaesthesia‐related risk factors for mortality in equine colic cases. Vet J 2006;171(1):89–97.
  38. Gazzerro DM, Southwood LL, Lindborg S. Short‐term complications after colic surgery in geriatric versus mature non‐geriatric horses. Vet Surg 2015;44(2):256–264.
  39. Krista KM, Kuebelbeck KL. Comparison of survival rates for geriatric horses versus nongeriatric horses following exploratory celiotomy for colic. JAVMA 2009;235(9):1069–1072.
  40. Rutherford DJ, England JT. Communication skills influence horse owners' trust in their equine veterinarians. Vet Rec 2024;195(10):e4705.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. Hockenhull J, Birke L, Creighton E. The horse's tale: narratives of caring for/about horses. Soc Animals 2010;18(4):331–347.
  44. Pearson NY. A study of horse ownership and management in Victoria, Australia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Institute of Land and Food Resources; 2003.
  45. Lightfoot KL, Burford JH, England GCW, Bowen IM, Freeman SL. Mixed methods investigation of the use of telephone triage within UK veterinary practices for horses with abdominal pain: a participatory action research study. PLoS One 2020;15(9):e0238874.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238874google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 100,631 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.