FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2019; 10(1); 21; doi: 10.3390/ani10010021

Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do Equine Stakeholders Differ in Their Information-Seeking Behaviour and Communication Preferences?

Abstract: Information on the management of animals within domestic environments is freely available to animal owners and caregivers either online, or in paper form by request. However, awareness is growing within the animal welfare sector that simply providing written guidelines or educational material is not enough to affect a positive change in owners in relation to animal welfare. In the quest to improve equine welfare, understanding the way that owners and other stakeholders seek information and their communication preferences is key to effective dissemination of up to date equine welfare information and research findings. Three UK equine stakeholder groups-horse owners, livery yard owners, and equine veterinarians-were surveyed online to find out where they sought equine information. Their awareness of equine welfare Codes of Practice, how they respond when they are asked to give advice to horse owners and their communication preferences were included within the survey. All three stakeholder groups tended to seek information from people rather than from organisations, or digital and printed resources. Veterinarians were the most used information source across all three stakeholder groups This highlighted the importance of ensuring that equine veterinarians have access to up to date, evidence-based equine welfare information. While the majority of participants were aware of the equine welfare Code of Practice, fewer had actually read it, this was true particularly amongst horse owners. The primary reasons for this were the features of the Code as well as the issuing organisation. The stakeholders expressed a preference for information to be communicated in a neutral or positive way rather than focusing on negative aspects. Our findings suggest that industry professionals, particularly veterinarians, have an important role to play in knowledge transfer and the dissemination of research findings to horse owners. The efficacy of equine welfare communication could be improved if the information delivery preferences of equine stakeholders are were taken into consideration.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-12-20 PubMed ID: 31861909PubMed Central: PMC7022754DOI: 10.3390/ani10010021Google 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 aims to evaluate how effective communication can improve equine welfare. The researchers studied how different groups involved with horses — horse owners, livery yard owners, and veterinarians — sought information and their communication preferences, focusing on equine welfare guidelines and advice.

Research Methodology

  • The researchers carried out surveys among three equine stakeholder groups in the UK: horse owners, livery yard owners, and equine veterinarians. They aimed to uncover where these stakeholders typically sought information about equine management and welfare. The survey included questions on awareness and use of equine welfare Codes of Practice, their response when asked for advice on horse ownership, and their preferences for communication.

Key Findings

  • The researchers found that all three groups tended to prefer getting information from people rather than organizations or other digital and printed resources. In this regard, veterinarians were most frequently used as information sources, signaling their importance in the dissemination of up-to-date and evidence-based information about equine welfare.
  • While most survey participants were aware of the equine welfare Code of Practice, fewer had actually read it. This was particularly true among horse owners. The reasons for this varied, but generally revolved around the Code’s features and the organization issuing it.
  • A significant finding was the stakeholders’ communication preference. They preferred neutral or positive messages instead of negative information. This preference can impact how industry professionals communicate research findings or advice to horse owners.

Implications

  • This study suggests a crucial role for veterinarians and other industry professionals in transferring knowledge and research findings to horse owners. Such key figures could have a profound impact on equine welfare, given their position as trusted sources of advice and information.
  • Understanding and catering to the information delivery preferences of these stakeholder groups could help increase the effectiveness of communication concerning equine welfare. More specifically, emphasizing neutral or positive messages appears to resonate better with these groups.

Conclusion

  • The study concludes that enhancing equine welfare communication’s efficacy could be possible by considering the information delivery preferences of various equine stakeholders, particularly veterinarians. By adjusting communication methods and focusing on more positively framed messages, it may be possible to drive a stronger positive change in horse owners’ behavior regarding equine welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Pickering P, Hockenhull J. (2019). Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do Equine Stakeholders Differ in Their Information-Seeking Behaviour and Communication Preferences? Animals (Basel), 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010021

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 1
PII: 21

Researcher Affiliations

Pickering, Persephone
  • Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.
Hockenhull, Jo
  • Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 49 references
  1. Whay H, Main D. Improving animal welfare: Practical approaches to achieving change. In: Grandin T., editor. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. CABI; Wallingford, UK: 2010. pp. 227–251.
  2. Rogers S. Human Behaviour in Mind. In: Rogers S., editor. Equine Behaviour in Mind. 5M Publishing Ltd.; Sheffield, UK: 2018. pp. 197–211.
  3. Whay H.R. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim. Welf. 2007;16:117–122.
  4. HBCA Human Behaviour Change for Animals. [(accessed on 11 December 2019)]; Available online: http://www.hbcforanimals.com/
  5. Hemsworth L. Behaviour change in horse owners to safeguard horse welfare. Proceedings of the 13th International Equitation Science Conference; Wagga, Australia. 22–25 November 2017; pp. 75–76.
  6. de Brauwere N. Do you understand me or should I shout louder? Bringing about human behaviour change in the equine industry. Proceedings of the 13th International Equitation Science Conference; Wagga, Australia. 22–25 November 2017; p. 86.
  7. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and Their Hybrids. [(accessed on 28 October 2019)]; Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700200/horses-welfare-codes-of-practice-april2018.pdf.
  8. Thompson K, Clarkson L. Views on equine-related research in Australia from the Australian equestrian community: perceived outputs and benefits.. Aust Vet J 2016 Apr;94(4):89-95.
    doi: 10.1111/avj.12420pubmed: 27021888google scholar: lookup
  9. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and their Hybrids. [(accessed on 30 October 2019)]; Available online: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dard/code-of-practice-for-the-welfare-of-horses-revised-111114.pdf.
  10. Llywodraeth Cymru Welsh Government. Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses. [(accessed on 30 October 2019)]; Available online: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-11/code-of-practice-for-the-welfare-of-horses.pdf.
  11. Government T.S. The Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae. [(accessed on 28 October 2019)]; Available online: https://www.gov.scot/publications/code-practice-welfare-equidae/pages/12/.
  12. National Equine Welfare Council. Equine Industry Welfare Guidelines Compendium for Horses, Ponies and Donkeys. (Third Edition). [(accessed on 28 October 2019)]; Available online: http://www.newc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Equine-Brochure-09.pdf?LMCL=bprAQO.
  13. Horseman S, Whay H, Mullan S, Knowles T, Barr A, Buller H. Horses in our Hands. [(accessed on 7 November 2019)]; Available online: http://www.worldhorsewelfare.org/survey-equine-welfare-england-and-wales.
  14. Joanna H, Lynda B, Emma C. The Horse’s Tale: Narratives of Caring for/about Horses. Soc. Anim. 2010;18:331–347.
    doi: 10.1163/156853010X524307google scholar: lookup
  15. Boden LA, Parkin TD, Yates J, Mellor D, Kao RR. An online survey of horse-owners in Great Britain.. BMC Vet Res 2013 Sep 28;9:188.
    doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-188pmc: PMC3850011pubmed: 24074003google scholar: lookup
  16. 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 Jul;39(4):294-300.
    doi: 10.2746/042516407X177538pubmed: 17722719google scholar: lookup
  17. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.. J Clin Epidemiol 1997 Oct;50(10):1129-36.
    doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1pubmed: 9368521google scholar: lookup
  18. Wensing M, Mainz J, Kramme O, Jung HP, Ribacke M. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice.. J Clin Epidemiol 1999 Jun;52(6):585-7.
    doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00024-4pubmed: 10408998google scholar: lookup
  19. Visser E.K., Van Wijk-Jansen E.E.C. Diversity in horse enthusiasts with respect to horse welfare: An explorative study. J. Vet. Behav. 2012;7:295–304.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.007google scholar: lookup
  20. Hockenhull J, Creighton E. A brief note on the information-seeking behavior of UK leisure horse owners. J. Vet. Behav. 2013;8:106–110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2012.04.002google scholar: lookup
  21. Chung A, Rimal R. Social Norms: A review. Rev. Commun. Res. 2016;4:1–28.
    doi: 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008google scholar: lookup
  22. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B. Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010;1:97–110.
    doi: 10.1002/wcc.2google scholar: lookup
  23. Dumitru RC, Bürkle T, Potapov S, Lausen B, Wiese B, Prokosch HU. Use and perception of internet for health related purposes in Germany: results of a national survey.. Int J Public Health 2007;52(5):275-85.
    doi: 10.1007/s00038-007-6067-0pubmed: 18030943google scholar: lookup
  24. Visser K, VanWijk E, Kortstee H, Verstegen J. Passion for horses: Improving horse welfare communication through identifying information search patterns, knowledge levels, beliefs, and daily practices of horse enthusiasts. J. Vet. Behav. 2011;6:297.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.05.016google scholar: lookup
  25. Bauman A, Smith B.J., Maibach E.W., Reger-Nash B. Evaluation of mass media campaigns for physical activity. Eval. Program Plan. 2006;29:312–322.
    doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.12.004google scholar: lookup
  26. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication.. J Med Internet Res 2013 Apr 23;15(4):e85.
    doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933pmc: PMC3636326pubmed: 23615206google scholar: lookup
  27. Lovejoy K, Saxton G.D. Information, Community, and Action: How Nonprofit Organizations Use Social Media. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2012;17:337–353.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01576.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  28. Martinson K, Hathaway M, Wilson J, Gilkerson B, Peterson P, Del Vecchio R. University of Minnesota Horse Owner Survey: Building an Equine Extension Program. J. Ext. 2006;44:1–8.
  29. Sullivan E. Ph.D Thesis. Texas A&M University; College Station, TX, USA: 2008. Channels and Sources Used to Gather Equine-Related Information by College-Age Horse Owners and Enthusiasts.
  30. Doherty O, McGreevy P.D., Pearson G. The importance of learning theory and equitation science to the veterinarian. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;190:111–122.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.012google scholar: lookup
  31. Bekoff M, Pierce J. The Animals Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age. Beacon Press; Boston, MA, USA: 2017.
  32. Kogan L, Oxley JA, Hellyer P, Schoenfeld R, Rishniw M. UK pet owners' use of the internet for online pet health information.. Vet Rec 2018 May 26;182(21):601.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.104716pubmed: 29549181google scholar: lookup
  33. Lam TJ, Jansen J, van den Borne BH, Renes RJ, Hogeveen H. What veterinarians need to know about communication to optimise their role as advisors on udder health in dairy herds.. N Z Vet J 2011 Jan;59(1):8-15.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2011.547163pubmed: 21328152google scholar: lookup
  34. Horseman S. The four priority welfare challenges. Equine Vet. Educ. 2017;29:415–416.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12729google scholar: lookup
  35. Bard AM, Main DC, 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.0171380pmc: PMC5336212pubmed: 28257511google scholar: lookup
  36. Carroll H.K., Bott-Knutson R.C., Mastellar S.L. Information-seeking preferences of equine owners and managers in the Upper Midwest. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;52:122.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.206google scholar: lookup
  37. Harris P.A. Food for thought. Equine Vet. Educ. 2016;28:121–122.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12475google scholar: lookup
  38. Bir C, Croney CC, Widmar NJO. US Residents' Perceptions of Dog Welfare Needs and Canine Welfare Information Sources.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2019 Jan-Mar;22(1):42-68.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1476862pubmed: 29884079google scholar: lookup
  39. Hockenhull J, Olmos G, Whatford L, Whay H, Main D, Roderick S, Buller H. The role of trusted individuals in the effective communication of animal health and welfare research. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level (WAFL); Clermont-Ferrand, France. 3–5 September 2014.
  40. Wild I, Burford J, England G, Bowen I, Feeman S. Barriers to Knowledge Transfer in Equine Practice: Thematic Analysis of Interviews and Online Questionnaire. Equine Vet. J. 2017;49:5–29.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13_12732google scholar: lookup
  41. Castro P, Batel S. Social Representation, Change and Resistance: On the Difficulties of Generalizing New Norms. Cult. Psychol. 2008;14:475–497.
    doi: 10.1177/1354067X08096512google scholar: lookup
  42. Vigors B. Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Apr 4;9(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9040147pmc: PMC6523948pubmed: 30987330google scholar: lookup
  43. Case DO, Andrews JE, Johnson JD, Allard SL. Avoiding versus seeking: the relationship of information seeking to avoidance, blunting, coping, dissonance, and related concepts.. J Med Libr Assoc 2005 Jul;93(3):353-62.
    pmc: PMC1175801pubmed: 16059425
  44. Weinman J. Providing written information for patients: psychological considerations.. J R Soc Med 1990 May;83(5):303-5.
    doi: 10.1177/014107689008300508pmc: PMC1292648pubmed: 2380946google scholar: lookup
  45. Horseman SV, Buller H, Mullan S, Knowles TG, Barr AR, Whay HR. Equine Welfare in England and Wales: Exploration of Stakeholders' Understanding.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2017 Jan-Mar;20(1):9-23.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1197776pubmed: 27414640google scholar: lookup
  46. Engdahl E, Lidskog R. Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust.. Public Underst Sci 2014 Aug;23(6):703-17.
    doi: 10.1177/0963662512460953pubmed: 25414929google scholar: lookup
  47. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.. Am J Bot 2009 Oct;96(10):1767-78.
    doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041pubmed: 21622297google scholar: lookup
  48. Thompson K, Haigh L. Perceptions of Equitation Science revealed in an online forum: Improving equine health and welfare by communicating science to equestrians and equestrian to scientists. J. Vet. Behav. 2018;25:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.02.002google scholar: lookup
  49. Krueger K, Esch L, Byrne R. Animal behaviour in a human world: A crowdsourcing study on horses that open door and gate mechanisms.. PLoS One 2019;14(6):e0218954.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218954pmc: PMC6594629pubmed: 31242266google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 9 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.