Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38487466›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2023

How equestrians conceptualise horse welfare: Does it facilitate or hinder change?

Karen L Luke, Andrea Rawluk, Tina McAdie, Bradley P Smith, Amanda K Warren-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karen L LukeSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bruce Hwy, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9861-7409
Andrea RawlukSchool of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9992-4662
Tina McAdieSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bruce Hwy, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0548-7623
Bradley P SmithSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Bruce Hwy, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0873-3917
Amanda K Warren-SmithNSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, NSW, 2800, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7080-2912

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than ever the welfare of horses in equestrian sport is in the spotlight. In response to this scrutiny, one peak body, the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) has created an Equine Ethics and Wellbeing Commission to protect their sport's longevity. However, for welfare-based strategies to be successful, the conceptualisation of horse welfare must align across various stakeholders, including the general public. The value-laden nature of welfare makes agreement on its definition, even among scientists, difficult. Given little is known about how equestrians conceptualise horse welfare, we interviewed 19 Australian amateur equestrians using a semi-structured format. Systems thinking and the Five Domains Model provided the theoretical framework and informed our methods. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified: (1) good horse welfare is tangible; (2) owners misinterpret unwanted horse behaviour; and (3) equestrians publicly minimise horse welfare issues but are privately concerned. Our results highlight participants' conceptualisations of horse welfare do not align with the Five Domains Model; participants' ideal of prioritising horse welfare does not align with their practice; and there is inconsistency between what participants share publicly and what they think privately about horse welfare. These findings can inform the development of programmes to improve ridden horse welfare throughout the horse industry. As a starting point, programmes that provide a safe space for equestrians to explore their private horse welfare concerns, and programmes that build a partnership mindset to facilitate knowledge exchange between all stakeholders are needed.

Indexed as

animal welfareequestrianFive Domains Modelhorse-human relationshiphorse welfaresystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID38487466
PMCPMC10937214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.