Equine Assessment Procedures in Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship Unmounted Programs.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Sarah Andersen, Michael L Pate, Judy Smith, Holly Clement, Rose Judd-Murray
{"title":"Equine Assessment Procedures in Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship Unmounted Programs.","authors":"Sarah Andersen, Michael L Pate, Judy Smith, Holly Clement, Rose Judd-Murray","doi":"10.13031/jash.15457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Survey data collected from equine-assisted services programs that offer unmounted (ground) programs document the need for standardized equine safety evaluations. 36.7% of respondents used an objectively defined method (i.e., used a defined percentage, number, rating scale, or yes/no checklist that must be achieved by the equine prior to them entering the program), while 63.3% did not use an objectively defined method. Common equine safety concerns were biting/nipping, spooking from external stimuli, and stepping on a person's foot.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship International (PATH Intl.) is an organization that supports equine-assisted services (EAS). As the standard setting organization for EAS programs, PATH Intl. established evaluation metrics to ensure the safety of both humans and equines. One of the standards, Equine Management and Welfare Standard 2 (EQM-2), calls for EAS programs to have an unbiased equine assessment process. This standard can be implemented in different ways depending on program policies. Survey data was collected on each type of center with regard to the implementation of the equine assessment standard in unmounted (ground) activities, as well as self-reported safety and equine evaluation procedures for unmounted (ground) activities. The primary research objective was to identify differences between PATH Intl. Premier Accredited Member Centers and PATH Intl. Member Centers. No significant differences were found between center types except for incidents of human injury (Χ2[2] = 9.908; p =.007). Both types of centers had a variety of responses related to the implementation of their evaluation procedures, including, but not limited to, how many individuals evaluate each equine, the type of assessment tool, and the frequency of evaluations. Future studies should examine the different evaluation methods in depth to determine an objective standard for equine evaluation procedures in EAS programs and how best to keep human participants safe during therapeutic services.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":"1 1","pages":"99-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.15457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Highlights: Survey data collected from equine-assisted services programs that offer unmounted (ground) programs document the need for standardized equine safety evaluations. 36.7% of respondents used an objectively defined method (i.e., used a defined percentage, number, rating scale, or yes/no checklist that must be achieved by the equine prior to them entering the program), while 63.3% did not use an objectively defined method. Common equine safety concerns were biting/nipping, spooking from external stimuli, and stepping on a person's foot.

Abstract: The Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship International (PATH Intl.) is an organization that supports equine-assisted services (EAS). As the standard setting organization for EAS programs, PATH Intl. established evaluation metrics to ensure the safety of both humans and equines. One of the standards, Equine Management and Welfare Standard 2 (EQM-2), calls for EAS programs to have an unbiased equine assessment process. This standard can be implemented in different ways depending on program policies. Survey data was collected on each type of center with regard to the implementation of the equine assessment standard in unmounted (ground) activities, as well as self-reported safety and equine evaluation procedures for unmounted (ground) activities. The primary research objective was to identify differences between PATH Intl. Premier Accredited Member Centers and PATH Intl. Member Centers. No significant differences were found between center types except for incidents of human injury (Χ2[2] = 9.908; p =.007). Both types of centers had a variety of responses related to the implementation of their evaluation procedures, including, but not limited to, how many individuals evaluate each equine, the type of assessment tool, and the frequency of evaluations. Future studies should examine the different evaluation methods in depth to determine an objective standard for equine evaluation procedures in EAS programs and how best to keep human participants safe during therapeutic services.

马评估程序的专业协会治疗马术下马程序。
亮点:从马辅助服务项目中收集的调查数据,提供无马(地面)项目,记录了标准化马安全评估的必要性。36.7%的受访者使用了客观定义的方法(即使用定义的百分比、数字、评级量表或马在进入项目之前必须达到的是/否清单),而63.3%的受访者没有使用客观定义的方法。常见的马安全问题是咬/咬,被外部刺激吓到,踩到人的脚。摘要:国际治疗马术专业协会(PATH Intl.)是一个支持马匹辅助服务(EAS)的组织。作为EAS项目的标准制定机构,PATH Intl。建立评估指标,以确保人和马的安全。其中一个标准,马管理和福利标准2 (EQM-2),要求EAS项目有一个公正的马评估过程。该标准可以根据程序策略以不同的方式实现。收集各类型中心关于马下(地)活动评价标准执行情况的调查数据,以及马下(地)活动的自报安全性和马评价程序。主要的研究目的是确定PATH和PATH之间的差异。顶级认证会员中心和PATH国际。会员中心。除人体伤害事件外,各中心类型间无显著差异(Χ2[2] = 9.908;p = .007)。两种类型的中心都有与评估程序实施相关的各种反应,包括但不限于,每匹马有多少人评估,评估工具的类型和评估的频率。未来的研究应该深入研究不同的评估方法,以确定EAS项目中马评估程序的客观标准,以及如何最好地保证人类参与者在治疗服务期间的安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信