马主的基本护理知识及其对实施强制性知识证书的看法。

IF 1.4 3区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Megan Watney, Bryony Lancaster, Hayley Randle
{"title":"马主的基本护理知识及其对实施强制性知识证书的看法。","authors":"Megan Watney, Bryony Lancaster, Hayley Randle","doi":"10.1080/10888705.2024.2393124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aims of this study were to first determine the extent of owners' fundamental knowledge of equine care, second, gain their opinions on the implementation of a mandatory certificate of knowledge and third, to investigate the association of certification on horse owner knowledge. An online survey comprising 23 questions (18 closed, 5 open) was distributed worldwide via snowball sampling, and completed by 1847 horse owners who were all ≥18 years old from 17 different countries. Almost all (96%, <i>n</i> = 1781) completed surveys were usable. Just over half (52%) of participants held a current equine knowledge certification, and 59% believed a mandatory certificate of knowledge should be necessary to buy, own, or sell a horse. Horse owners with an equine certificate of knowledge were more likely to be in favor of a mandatory certificate (Pearson's Chi-squared = 50.79, df = 1, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). The mean correctly answered knowledge questions was 68%, indicating that approximately 1/3 of horse owners lacked fundamental horse care knowledge. Further examination indicated that participating horse owners showed the least understanding in the behavioral interactions domain (ANOVA F(4, 24) = 4.98, <i>p</i> < 0.01), specifically in relation to pain recognition and learning theory terminology. Arguably, this deficit in knowledge and likely correct application increases the risk of owners using misinformed or inappropriate techniques to manage horse behavior and training, predisposing the horse to experiencing a sub-optimal quality of life. Overall no significant difference was found between the total correct scores of horse owners with or without a certificate (ANOVA F(1, 56) = 0.78, <i>p</i> > 0.05); however, a series of Chi-squared tests revealed that for the more complex questions, horse owners with a certificate scored better than those without (all <i>p</i> < 0.05). Further work is needed to develop an evidence-based assessment framework if mandatory certification of horse owners is to become an effective tool for improving horse welfare and quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":56277,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Horse Owners' Knowledge of Fundamental Care and their Perceptions on the Implementation of a Mandatory Certificate of Knowledge.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Watney, Bryony Lancaster, Hayley Randle\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10888705.2024.2393124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aims of this study were to first determine the extent of owners' fundamental knowledge of equine care, second, gain their opinions on the implementation of a mandatory certificate of knowledge and third, to investigate the association of certification on horse owner knowledge. An online survey comprising 23 questions (18 closed, 5 open) was distributed worldwide via snowball sampling, and completed by 1847 horse owners who were all ≥18 years old from 17 different countries. Almost all (96%, <i>n</i> = 1781) completed surveys were usable. Just over half (52%) of participants held a current equine knowledge certification, and 59% believed a mandatory certificate of knowledge should be necessary to buy, own, or sell a horse. Horse owners with an equine certificate of knowledge were more likely to be in favor of a mandatory certificate (Pearson's Chi-squared = 50.79, df = 1, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). The mean correctly answered knowledge questions was 68%, indicating that approximately 1/3 of horse owners lacked fundamental horse care knowledge. Further examination indicated that participating horse owners showed the least understanding in the behavioral interactions domain (ANOVA F(4, 24) = 4.98, <i>p</i> < 0.01), specifically in relation to pain recognition and learning theory terminology. Arguably, this deficit in knowledge and likely correct application increases the risk of owners using misinformed or inappropriate techniques to manage horse behavior and training, predisposing the horse to experiencing a sub-optimal quality of life. Overall no significant difference was found between the total correct scores of horse owners with or without a certificate (ANOVA F(1, 56) = 0.78, <i>p</i> > 0.05); however, a series of Chi-squared tests revealed that for the more complex questions, horse owners with a certificate scored better than those without (all <i>p</i> < 0.05). Further work is needed to develop an evidence-based assessment framework if mandatory certification of horse owners is to become an effective tool for improving horse welfare and quality of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56277,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2024.2393124\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2024.2393124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的首先是确定马主对马匹护理基本知识的掌握程度,其次是了解他们对实施强制性知识证书的看法,第三是调查证书与马主知识的关联。通过滚雪球式抽样在全球范围内发放了一份在线调查问卷,共有 23 个问题(18 个封闭式问题和 5 个开放式问题),来自 17 个不同国家的 1847 名年龄均≥18 岁的马主填写了问卷。几乎所有(96%,n = 1781)完成的调查问卷都是可用的。略高于半数(52%)的参与者目前持有马术知识证书,59%的参与者认为购买、拥有或出售马匹必须持有马术知识证书。持有马术知识证书的马主更倾向于支持强制性证书(Pearson's Chi-squared = 50.79, df = 1, p p > 0.05);然而,一系列的Chi-squared检验表明,对于较为复杂的问题,持有证书的马主得分高于未持有证书的马主(所有P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Horse Owners' Knowledge of Fundamental Care and their Perceptions on the Implementation of a Mandatory Certificate of Knowledge.

The aims of this study were to first determine the extent of owners' fundamental knowledge of equine care, second, gain their opinions on the implementation of a mandatory certificate of knowledge and third, to investigate the association of certification on horse owner knowledge. An online survey comprising 23 questions (18 closed, 5 open) was distributed worldwide via snowball sampling, and completed by 1847 horse owners who were all ≥18 years old from 17 different countries. Almost all (96%, n = 1781) completed surveys were usable. Just over half (52%) of participants held a current equine knowledge certification, and 59% believed a mandatory certificate of knowledge should be necessary to buy, own, or sell a horse. Horse owners with an equine certificate of knowledge were more likely to be in favor of a mandatory certificate (Pearson's Chi-squared = 50.79, df = 1, p < 0.0001). The mean correctly answered knowledge questions was 68%, indicating that approximately 1/3 of horse owners lacked fundamental horse care knowledge. Further examination indicated that participating horse owners showed the least understanding in the behavioral interactions domain (ANOVA F(4, 24) = 4.98, p < 0.01), specifically in relation to pain recognition and learning theory terminology. Arguably, this deficit in knowledge and likely correct application increases the risk of owners using misinformed or inappropriate techniques to manage horse behavior and training, predisposing the horse to experiencing a sub-optimal quality of life. Overall no significant difference was found between the total correct scores of horse owners with or without a certificate (ANOVA F(1, 56) = 0.78, p > 0.05); however, a series of Chi-squared tests revealed that for the more complex questions, horse owners with a certificate scored better than those without (all p < 0.05). Further work is needed to develop an evidence-based assessment framework if mandatory certification of horse owners is to become an effective tool for improving horse welfare and quality of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS) publishes articles on methods of experimentation, husbandry, and care that demonstrably enhance the welfare of nonhuman animals in various settings. For administrative purposes, manuscripts are categorized into the following four content areas: welfare issues arising in laboratory, farm, companion animal, and wildlife/zoo settings. Manuscripts of up to 7,000 words are accepted that present new empirical data or a reevaluation of available data, conceptual or theoretical analysis, or demonstrations relating to some issue of animal welfare science. JAAWS also publishes brief research reports of up to 3,500 words that consist of (1) pilot studies, (2) descriptions of innovative practices, (3) studies of interest to a particular region, or (4) studies done by scholars who are new to the field or new to academic publishing. In addition, JAAWS publishes book reviews and literature reviews by invitation only.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信