ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Understanding antimicrobial use by equine owners in Wales: Using cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding antimicrobial use by equine owners in Wales: Using cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews.Equine veterinary journal · 2026Article
- "Not a problem because we drench for it": the management of liver fluke on sheep farms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an increasingly serious threat to human and animal health. Antimicrobial use (AMU) in horses is gathering research interest, although there remain significant evidence gaps. Currently, there is scant qualitative research into equine owners' use of antimicrobials, specifically antibiotics, hindering the design of evidence-based stewardship interventions and policies.
objectivesTo understand Welsh equine owners' views and behaviours relating to antimicrobial usage. STUDY
designCross sectional survey and qualitative data collection and analysis.
methodsAn online survey (n = 319) and semi-structured interviews (n = 21) were conducted with Welsh equine owners. The survey examined participant knowledge of and relationship with their horse(s), sourcing of antibiotics, owner-vet interactions on antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic usage, and their understanding of AMR. Semi-structured in-depth interviews further explored horse owner perspectives, experiences, and decision-making relating to these areas, to add nuance and depth to quantitative data. Survey data were descriptively analysed, and interview data were coded and qualitatively analysed using a thematic approach.
resultsWelsh equine owners regarded their horses as members of the family (84.8%). Most sourced antibiotics from their vet (68.9%) with a minority (5.1%) never having done so or having used antibiotics left over (16.6%) and 13.6% would consider changing veterinary practice if they did not receive antibiotics when they requested them. Interview data suggest that antibiotic use was shaped by (i) key relationships of care (human-animal and owner-vet); (ii) competing priorities (treatment need versus ease of administration); and (iii) imperfect comprehension (education, information, AMU/AMR knowledge). MAIN LIMITATIONS: Potential self-selection bias of respondents due to the voluntary nature of participation.
conclusionsThis study highlights variations in the horse-owner relationship, conflicting priorities involved in horse ownership, and the quality of vet-client relationships which may influence treatment decision-making. It raises some concerns about the sourcing of antibiotics and variable understanding of AMR, with important implications for antimicrobial stewardship and educational priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.