Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107791›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2024

"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.

Mariessa Long, Herwig Grimm, Florien Jenner, Jessika-M V Cavalleri, Svenja Springer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Mariessa LongMesserli 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.
Herwig GrimmMesserli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Florien JennerEquine 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.
Jessika-M V CavalleriEquine 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.
Svenja SpringerMesserli Research Institute, Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210 Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality 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.

methodsSeven 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.

resultsFindings 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.

conclusionsDifferences 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.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsHorse DiseasesQuality of LifeVeterinariansAnimalsAustriaChronic DiseaseDecision MakingFemaleHorsesHumansMaleA good lifeEnd-of-life decisionsEuthanasiaHorse welfareQuality of lifeVeterinary care decisions

Identifiers

PMID39107791
PMCPMC11302025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.