FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(11); 1821; doi: 10.3390/ani13111821

Testing and Refining the Ethical Framework for the Use of Horses in Sport.

Abstract: In 2021, in response to an acknowledged need for universal, consistent ethics to guide decision making in the horse sport sector, Campbell published a theoretical ethical framework for the use of horses in competitive sport. The research reported here tested the applied usefulness of that theoretical ethical framework through stakeholder engagement in a three-round modified Delphi study and refined it to develop a practical decision-making tool which can be applied consistently across multiple equestrian disciplines. Stakeholders from a broad range of equestrian competitive disciplines participated in the research. Participants were required to apply the ethical framework to a pre-determined ethical dilemma, individually (Rounds 1 and 2) and within a group (Round 3), and at the end of each round to complete a questionnaire designed to gauge opinion and user experience. At the completion of each round of testing, the theoretical framework was refined based on stakeholder feedback. Results showed that participants perceived useability and application of the framework to generally increase with each round. Qualitative content analysis identified key concepts, including cognition (e.g., broadens/deepens thinking) and application (e.g., considers multiple angles from a variety of information sources, needs to be a short/simple process). Results suggested that the refined framework is beneficial for group decision making across a wide variety of ethical issues and equestrian competitive disciplines. The framework thus has the potential to improve equine welfare through facilitating consistent ethical decision making in which the interests of the horse are prioritized.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-05-31 PubMed ID: 37889722PubMed Central: PMC10252045DOI: 10.3390/ani13111821Google 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 tests and refines a theoretical ethical framework designed by Campbell in 2021 for the use of horses in sport, using a modified Delphi approach. It also aimed at arriving at a practical tool for decision-making applied uniformly across different equestrian sports. The research determined that the framework is seen as more useful and applicable as iterations progress, and showed that it is valuable for group decision-making regarding varied ethical concerns in equestrian discipline, potentially improving horse welfare by ensuring decisions prioritize horse interests.

Study Design & Refinement Process

  • The study involved a theoretical ethical framework, originally developed by Campbell in 2021, as its subject. The goal was to test its applied usefulness and refine it into a practical tool.
  • A three-round modified Delphi method was used, engaging stakeholders from a variety of equestrian competitive disciplines. The Delphi method, in its traditional form, is a systematic forecasting process that involves a panel of experts who respond to questionnaires in two or more rounds.
  • After the first round, the moderator provides an anonymized summary of the expert’s forecast from the previous round and the reasoning behind them. Participants are asked to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies from their peer experts.
  • In this study, participants were asked to apply the ethical framework to a given ethical dilemma, both as individuals (in Rounds 1 and 2), and as a part of a group (in Round 3).

Result Collection & Analysis

  • Post each round, participants filled out a questionnaire designed to record their opinions and the user experience. This served as a feedback that informed the subsequent refinement of the framework.
  • The results showed the participants perceived the framework’s usability and application to improve with each round, signaled by the refining process based on the feedback received.
  • Qualitative content analysis was performed on the received data, and it identified key concepts relating to cognition (for example, the framework helped broaden/deepen thinking about the ethical dilemma) and application (for example, the framework encouraged considering multiple perspectives from varied information sources, and needed to be a straightforward and simple process).

Value for Ethical Decision Making & Welfare of Horses

  • The research found the revised framework to be beneficial for group decision making across multiple ethical issues pertaining to equestrian competitive disciplines.
  • Furthermore, the implementation of this framework is expected to bring improvements to equine welfare. This is due to the process encouraging decision-making where the horse’s interests are given priority, which is a key requirement for animal welfare in sports.

Cite This Article

APA
Brown B, Cardwell JM, Verheyen KLP, Campbell MLH. (2023). Testing and Refining the Ethical Framework for the Use of Horses in Sport. Animals (Basel), 13(11), 1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111821

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 11
PII: 1821

Researcher Affiliations

Brown, Bluebell
  • Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Herts AL9 7TA, UK.
Cardwell, Jacqueline M
  • Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Herts AL9 7TA, UK.
Verheyen, Kristien L P
  • Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Herts AL9 7TA, UK.
Campbell, Madeleine L H
  • School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonnington, Nottingham LE12 5RD, UK.

Grant Funding

  • 21.01 Campbell / World Horse Welfare

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 98 references
  1. Duncan I.J.H.. Science-Based Assessment of Animal Welfare: Farm Animals. Rev. Sci. Tech.-Off. Int. Epizoot. 2005;24:483–492.
    doi: 10.20506/rst.24.2.1587pubmed: 16358502google scholar: lookup
  2. Animal Welfare Act; c. 45. [(accessed on 1 March 2023)];2006 Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents.
  3. Hockenhull J., Whay H.R.. A Review of Approaches to Assessing Equine Welfare. Equine Vet. Educ. 2014;26:159–166.
    doi: 10.1111/eve.12129google scholar: lookup
  4. Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J.. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ Model for Animal Welfare Assessment to Incorporate Positive Welfare States. Anim. Welf. 2015;24:241–253.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.3.241google scholar: lookup
  5. Mellor D.J.. Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living”. Animals 2016;6:21.
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030021pmc: PMC4810049pubmed: 27102171google scholar: lookup
  6. Dashper K.. Tools of the Trade or Part of the Family? Horses in Competitive Equestrian Sport. Soc. Anim. 2014;22:352–371.
    doi: 10.1163/15685306-12341343google scholar: lookup
  7. Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J., Littlewood K.E., Mclean A.N., Mcgreevy P.D., Jones B., Wilkins C.. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human—Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals 2020;10:1870.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  8. Bergmann I.M.. Naturalness and the Legitimacy of Thoroughbred Racing: A Photo-Elicitation Study with Industry and Animal Advocacy Informants. Animals 2020;10:1513.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10091513pmc: PMC7552286pubmed: 32859112google scholar: lookup
  9. Campbell M.L.H.. An Ethical Framework for the Use of Horses in Competitive Sport: Theory and Function. Animals 2021;11:1725.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061725pmc: PMC8230307pubmed: 34207809google scholar: lookup
  10. Douglas J., Owers R., Campbell M.L.H.. Social Licence to Operate: What Can Equestrian Sports Learn from Other Industries?. Animals 2022;12:1987.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12151987pmc: PMC9367437pubmed: 35953977google scholar: lookup
  11. Campbell M.L.H.. Freedoms and Frameworks: How We Think about the Welfare of Competition Horses. Equine Vet. J. 2016;48:540–542.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12598pubmed: 27515500google scholar: lookup
  12. Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission. [(accessed on 12 December 2022)]. Available online: https://equinewellbeing.fei.org/index.html.
  13. Horse Welfare Board. [(accessed on 12 October 2022)]. Available online: https://www.britishhorseracing.com/regulation/horse-welfare-board/
  14. Moore C.M.. Group Techniques for Idea Building. 1987. pp. 15–17.
  15. Liz Paola N.Z., Torgerson P.R., Hartnack S.. Alternative Paradigms in Animal Health Decisions: A Framework for Treating Animals Not Only as Commodities. Animals 2022;12:1845.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141845pmc: PMC9311748pubmed: 35883391google scholar: lookup
  16. Uldahl M., Dérian D.A., Hartmann S., Richter T.. A Transparent Methodology for Society to Address Animal Welfare from the Intrinsic Value and the Justifying Reason to A Transparent Methodology for Society Addressing Animal Welfare—Proposal for an Ethical Based Framework for Decision Makers. Res. Rev. J. Vet. Sci. 2022;3:8–17.
  17. Muhammad M., Stokes J.E., Manning L.. The Social Construction of Narratives and Arguments in Animal Welfare Discourse and Debate. Animals 2022;12:2582.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12192582pmc: PMC9559530pubmed: 36230322google scholar: lookup
  18. Brehm J.W.. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. 1966.
  19. Dillard J.P., Shen L.. On the Nature of Reactance and Its Role in Persuasive Health Communication. Commun. Monogr. 2005;72:144–168.
    doi: 10.1080/03637750500111815google scholar: lookup
  20. Miller C.H., Lane L.T., Deatrick L.M., Young A.M., Potts K.A.. Psychological Reactance and Promotional Health Messages: The Effects of Controlling Language, Lexical Concreteness, and the Restoration of Freedom. Hum. Commun. Res. 2007;33:219–240.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  21. Rains S.A.. The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited: A Meta-Analytic Review. Hum. Commun. Res. 2013;39:47–73.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01443.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  22. Wiethoelter A.K., Sawford K., Schembri N., Taylor M.R., Dhand N.K., Moloney B., Wright T., Kung N., Field H.E., Toribio J.A.L.M.L.. “We’ve Learned to Live with It”—A Qualitative Study of Australian Horse Owners’ Attitudes, Perceptions and Practices in Response to Hendra Virus. Prev. Vet. Med. 2017;140:67–77.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2017.03.003pubmed: 28460752google scholar: lookup
  23. Data Protection Act, c. 12. [(accessed on 1 March 2023)];2018 Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted.
  24. Krosnick J., Presser S.. Question and Questionnaire design. 2010.
  25. Saunders M.N.K., Lewis P., Thornhill A.. Research Methods for Business Students. 2012.
  26. Gardner P.L.. The dimensionality of attitude scales: A widely misunderstood idea. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1996;18:913–919.
    doi: 10.1080/0950069960180804google scholar: lookup
  27. Boud D., Keogh R., Walker D.. Reflection: Turning Experiences into Learning. 1985.
  28. Clapper T.C.. Beyond Knowles: What Those Conducting Simulation Need to Know About Adult Learning Theory. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 2010;6:7–14.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2009.07.003google scholar: lookup
  29. Online Surveys. [(accessed on 21 October 2020)]. Available online: https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk.
  30. White G., McClure S.R., Sifferman R., Holste J.E., Fleishman C., Murray M.J., Cramer L.G.. Effects of short-term light to heavy exercise on gastric ulcer development in horses and efficacy of omeprazole paste in preventing gastric ulceration. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2007;230:1680–1682.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.230.11.1680pubmed: 17542738google scholar: lookup
  31. Sykes B.W., Hallowell G.D., Bowen M., Martin J.L.H.. Management Factors and Clinical Implications of Glandular and Squamous Gastric Disease in Horses. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2019;33:233–240.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.15350pmc: PMC6335573pubmed: 30499188google scholar: lookup
  32. Pedersen S.K., Cribb A.E., Windeyer M.C., Read E.K., French D., Banse H.E.. Risk factors for equine glandular and squamous gastric disease in show jumping Warmbloods. Equine Vet. J. 2018;50:747–751.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12949pubmed: 29660168google scholar: lookup
  33. Banse H.E., Macleod H., Crosby C., Windeyer M.C.. Prevalence of and risk factors for equine glandular and squamous gastric disease in Polo Horses. Can. Vet. J. 2018;59:880–884.
    pmc: PMC6049336pubmed: 30104780
  34. Banse H.E., Andrews F.M.. Equine Glandular Gastric Disease: Prevalence, Impact and Management Strategies. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 2019;10:69–76.
    doi: 10.2147/VMRR.S174427pmc: PMC6642651pubmed: 31406687google scholar: lookup
  35. Gough S., Hallowell G., Rendle D.. A Study Investigating the Treatment of Equine Squamous Gastric Disease with Long-Acting Injectable or Oral Omeprazole. Vet. Med. Sci. 2020;6:235–241.
    doi: 10.1002/vms3.220pmc: PMC7196684pubmed: 31945806google scholar: lookup
  36. Sykes B.W., Hewetson M., Hepburn R.J., Luthersson N., Tamzali Y.. ECEIM Consensus Statement. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2015;29:1288–1299.
    doi: 10.1111/jvim.13578pmc: PMC4858038pubmed: 26340142google scholar: lookup
  37. Horse and Hound. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]. Available online: https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/horse-care/vet-advice/gastric-ulcers-in-horses-122932#causes.
  38. The Horse. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]. Available online: https://thehorse.com/138308/equine-gastric-ulcers-diagnosis-treatment-and-prevention/
  39. The Horse. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]. Available online: https://thehorse.com/139378/hard-to-stomach-equine-gastric-ulcer-syndrome/
  40. FEI. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]. Available online: https://www.fei.org/stories/lifestyle/health-fitness/equine-gastric-ulcer-syndrome-acid.
  41. FEI. General Regulations. 24th ed. 2020. pp. 5–66.
  42. FEI. 2020 Veterinary Regulations. 14th ed. 2018. pp. 5–119.
  43. FEI. 2020 Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations. 2nd ed. 2017. pp. 1–80.
  44. FEI. 2020 Equine Prohibited Substances List. 2019. pp. 1–38.
  45. FEI. Changes to the 2020 FEI Equine Prohibited Substances List (EPSL) (Effective from 01.01.2021). 2020. p. 1.
  46. Hurlingham Polo Association. Year Book 2020. 2020. pp. 2–135.
  47. British Horseracing Authority. British Horseracing Authority Rules of Racing Version 4.1. 2020. pp. 1–13.
  48. British Horseracing Authority. BHA Notice: Injectable Omeprazole. 2020. p. 1.
  49. International Federation of Horseracing Authorities. The International Agreement on Breeding, Racing and Wagering. 2020. pp. 1–165.
  50. Norbrook Laboratories Limited. Summary of Product Characteristics AN: 01998/2017. 2018. pp. 1–6.
  51. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health UK Ltd.. Summary of Product Characteristics AN: 00719/2019. 2020. pp. 1–5.
  52. Krathwohl A.. A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41:212–219.
    doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2google scholar: lookup
  53. Bloom B.S., Englehart M.D., First E.J., Hill W.H., Krathwohl D.R.. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. 1956.
  54. Caine G., Caine R.N.. Meaningful Learning and the Executive Functions of the Brain. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2006;110:53–61.
    doi: 10.1002/ace.219google scholar: lookup
  55. Crowe A., Dirks C., Wenderoth M.P.. Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2008;7:368–381.
    doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024pmc: PMC2592046pubmed: 19047424google scholar: lookup
  56. Heijltjes A., van Gog T., Leppink J., Paas F.. Improving Critical Thinking: Effects of Dispositions and Instructions Oneconomics Students’ Reasoning Skills. Learn. Instr. 2014;29:31–42.
    doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.003google scholar: lookup
  57. Roediger H.L., Karpicke J.D.. Test-Enhanced Learning Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention. Psychol. Sci. 2006;17:249–255.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.xpubmed: 16507066google scholar: lookup
  58. Dunlosky J., Rawson K.A., Marsh E.J., Nathan M.J., Willingham D.T.. Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest. 2013;14:4–58.
    doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266pubmed: 26173288google scholar: lookup
  59. Stenlund T., Jönsson F.U., Jonsson B.. Group Discussions and Test-Enhanced Learning: Individual Learning Outcomes and Personality Characteristics. Educ. Psychol. 2017;37:145–156.
    doi: 10.1080/01443410.2016.1143087pmc: PMC5359742pubmed: 28392609google scholar: lookup
  60. Piaget J.. Piaget’s Theory. 1976. pp. 11–23.
  61. Sweller J., Van Merrienboer J.J.G., Paas F.G.W.C.. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1998;10:251–296.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205google scholar: lookup
  62. Mayer R.E., Heiser J., Lonn S.. Cognitive Constraints on Multimedia Learning: When Presenting More Material Results in Less Understanding. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001;93:187–198.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187google scholar: lookup
  63. Baume D., Scanlon E.. What the Research Says About How and Why Learning Happens. 2018. pp. 2–13.
  64. Kramer M., Olson D., Walker J.D.. Design and Assessment of Online, Interactive Tutorials That Teach Science Process Skills. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2018;17:ar19.
    doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-06-0109pmc: PMC5998323pubmed: 29749846google scholar: lookup
  65. O’Shea M.C., Palermo C., Rogers G.D., Cardell E., Williams L.T.. It Is Time to Link Theory to Practice in Simulation-Based Learning: Lessons from Learning Theories. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021;122:508–518.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2021.06.011pubmed: 34281810google scholar: lookup
  66. Freeman S., Eddy S.L., McDonough M., Smith M.K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M.P.. Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:8410–8415.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111pmc: PMC4060654pubmed: 24821756google scholar: lookup
  67. Diamond I.R., Grant R.C., Feldman B.M., Pencharz P.B., Ling S.C., Moore A.M., Wales P.W.. Defining Consensus: A Systematic Review Recommends Methodologic Criteria for Reporting of Delphi Studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014;67:401–409.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002pubmed: 24581294google scholar: lookup
  68. Kirschner F., Paas F., Kirschner P.A.. A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2006;21:31–42.
    doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2google scholar: lookup
  69. Yetton P., Bottger P.. The Relationships among Group Size, Member Ability, Social Decision Schemes, and Performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1983;32:145–159.
    doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90144-7google scholar: lookup
  70. Carey H.R., Laughlin P.R.. Groups Perform Better than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems: Effects of Induced Strategies. Gr. Process. Intergr. Relat. 2012;15:231–242.
    doi: 10.1177/1368430211419174google scholar: lookup
  71. Aubé C., Rousseau V., Tremblay S.. Team Size and Quality of Group Experience: The More the Merrier?. Gr. Dyn. 2011;15:357–375.
    doi: 10.1037/a0025400google scholar: lookup
  72. Amir O., Amir D., Shahar Y., Hart Y., Gal K.. The More the Merrier? Increasing Group Size May Be Detrimental to Decision-Making Performance in Nominal Groups. PLoS ONE 2018;13:0192213.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192213pmc: PMC5828441pubmed: 29485989google scholar: lookup
  73. Clayton M.J.. Delphi: A Technique to Harness Expert Opinion for Critical Decision-Making Tasks in Education. Educ. Psychol. 1997;17:373–386.
    doi: 10.1080/0144341970170401google scholar: lookup
  74. BETA Market Information. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]. Available online: https://www.beta-uk.org/pages/industry-information/market-information.php#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20regular%20riders,in%20Britain%20stands%20at%20847%2C000.
  75. PETA—Horse Racing. [(accessed on 30 April 2021)]. Available online: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing-2/
  76. More S.J., McKenzie K., O’Flaherty J., Doherty M.L., Cromie A.R., Magan M.J.. Setting priorities for non-regulatory animal health in Ireland: Results from an expert Policy Delphi study and a farmer priority identification survey. Prev. Vet. Med. 2010;95:198–207.
    doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.04.011pubmed: 20554068google scholar: lookup
  77. Menoud G., Flammer S.A., Spadavecchia C., Raillard M.. Development and Implementation of a Perianesthetic Safety Checklist in a Veterinary University Small Animal Teaching Hospital. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018;5:60.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00060pmc: PMC5891598pubmed: 29666797google scholar: lookup
  78. Thomas H. (World Horse Welfare, Norwich, UK). Personal communication. 2021.
  79. Festinger L.. Cognitive Dissonance. Sci. Am. 1962;207:93–106.
    doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93pubmed: 13892642google scholar: lookup
  80. Bandura A.. Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. Am. Psychol. 1989;44:1175–1184.
    doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175pubmed: 2782727google scholar: lookup
  81. Birke L., Hockenhull J., Creighton E.. The Horse’s Tale: Narratives of Caring for/about Horses The Horse’s Tale: Narratives of Caring for/about Horses. Soc. Anim. 2010;18:331–337.
    doi: 10.1163/156853010X524307google scholar: lookup
  82. Dandekar P., Goel A., Lee D.T.. Biased Assimilation, Homophily, and the Dynamics of Polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2013;110:5791–5796.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217220110pmc: PMC3625335pubmed: 23536293google scholar: lookup
  83. Petty R.E., Briñol P.. Emotion and Persuasion: Cognitive and Meta- Cognitive Processes Impact Attitudes. Cogn. Emot. 2014;29:1–26.
    doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.967183pubmed: 25302943google scholar: lookup
  84. West R., Michie S.. A Brief Introduction to the COM-B Model of Behaviour and the PRIME Theory of Motivation. Qeios 2020:2–7.
    doi: 10.32388/ww04e6.2google scholar: lookup
  85. Childress J.F., Faden R.R., Gaare R.D., Gostin L.O., Kahn J., Bonnie R.J., Kass N.E., Mastroianni A.C., Moreno J.D., Nieburg P.. Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. J. Law Med. Ethics. 2002;30:170–178.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2002.tb00384.xpubmed: 12066595google scholar: lookup
  86. Cooper J.J., Mason G.J.. The identification of abnormal behaviour and behavioural problems in stabled horses and their relationship to horse welfare: A comparative review. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 1998;30:5–9.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1998.tb05136.xpubmed: 10484995google scholar: lookup
  87. Henderson A.J.Z.. Don’t Fence Me In: Managing Psychological Well Being for Elite Performance Horses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2007;10:309–329.
    doi: 10.1080/10888700701555576pubmed: 17970632google scholar: lookup
  88. Burger D., Baumgartner M., Bachmann I., Poncet P.-A.. Applied research on equine behaviour. Rev. Suisse d’Agric. 2008;40:109–115.
  89. Benhajali H., Richard-Yris M.A., Ezzaouia M., Charfi F., Hausberger M.. Foraging opportunity: A crucial criterion for horse welfare?. Animal 2009;3:1308–1312.
    doi: 10.1017/S1751731109004820pubmed: 22444907google scholar: lookup
  90. Minero M., Canali E.. Welfare issues of horses: An overview and practical recommendations. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2010;8:219.
    doi: 10.4081/ijas.2009.s1.219google scholar: lookup
  91. Keeling L., Hartmann E., Søndergaard E.. Keeping horses in groups: A review. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;136:77–87.
  92. Tadich T., Smulders J.P., Araya O., Nicol C.J.. Husbandry practices associated with the presentation of abnormal behaviours in Chilean Creole horses. Arch. Med. Vet. 2012;44:279–284.
    doi: 10.4067/S0301-732X2012000300011google scholar: lookup
  93. Freire R., Buckley P., Cooper J.J.. Effects of different forms of exercise on post inhibitory rebound and unwanted behaviour in stabled horses. Equine Vet. J. 2009;41:487–492.
    doi: 10.2746/095777309X383883pubmed: 19642410google scholar: lookup
  94. Smith R.K., Birch H., Patterson-Kane J., Firth E.C., Williams L., Cherdchutham W., van Weeren W.R., Goodship A.E.. Should equine athletes commence training duringskeletal development? changes in tendon matrix associated withdevelopment, ageing, function and exercise. Equine Vet. J. 1999;31:201–209.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1999.tb05218.xpubmed: 10659252google scholar: lookup
  95. Firth E.C., Rogers C.W.. Musculoskeletal responses of 2-year-oldThoroughbred horses to early training: Conclusions. N. Z. Vet. J. 2005;53:377–383.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2005.36581pubmed: 16317437google scholar: lookup
  96. Firth E.C.. The response of bone, articular cartilage and tendon to exercisein the horse. J. Anat. 2006;208:513–526.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2006.00547.xpmc: PMC2100207pubmed: 16637875google scholar: lookup
  97. Verheyen K.L.. Reducing injuries in racehorses: Missionimpossible?. Equine Vet. J. 2013;45:6–7.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.12009pubmed: 23231383google scholar: lookup
  98. Rogers C.W., Firth E.C., McIlwraith C.W., Barneveld A., Goodship A.E., Kawcak C.E., Smith R.K., van Weeren P.R.. Evaluation of a new strategy to modulate skeletaldevelopment in Thoroughbred performance horses by imposing track-based exercise during growth. Equine Vet. J. 2008;40:111–118.
    doi: 10.2746/042516408X268923pubmed: 18093894google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Williams JM, Berg LC, Clayton HM, Kirsch K, Marlin D, Randle H, Roepstroff L, Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan MSV, Weishaupt MA, Munsters C. A Delphi Study to Determine International and National Equestrian Expert Opinions on Domains and Sub-Domains Essential to Managing Sporthorse Health and Welfare in the Olympic Disciplines. Animals (Basel) 2023 Nov 2;13(21).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13213404pubmed: 37958159google scholar: lookup
  2. Fiedler JM, Rosanowski S, Ayre ML, Slater JD. Horse Activity Participants' Perceptions About Practices Undertaken at Activity Venues, and Horse Welfare and Wellbeing. Animals (Basel) 2025 Jul 24;15(15).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15152182pubmed: 40804971google scholar: lookup
  3. Allen K, King M, Anderson L, Mullan S. Ethical issues concerning UK veterinary surgeons practicing in equine sports medicine. Equine Vet J 2025 May;57(3):674-683.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14204pubmed: 39032049google scholar: lookup
  4. Campbell MLH, Sykes BW. Should the use of omeprazole be allowed during equestrian competition?. Equine Vet J 2025 May;57(3):555-562.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.14129pubmed: 38994580google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,824 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.