Horse owners’ knowledge, and opinions on recognising colic in the horse

• Published in: Equine veterinary journal Vol. 52; no. 2; pp. 262 - 267
• Main Authors: Bowden, A., Burford, J. H., Brennan, M. L., England, G. C. W., Freeman, S. L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.03.2020
• Subjects: Animals; colic; Colic - veterinary; Cross-Sectional Studies; decision‐making; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; horse; Horse Diseases; Horses; knowledge; owner; signs; Surveys and Questionnaires; horse; owner; signs; decision-making; colic; knowledge
• ISSN: 0425-1644; 2042-3306
• DOI: 10.1111/evj.13173

Summary Background Colic is the most common emergency problem in the horse. An owner’s ability to recognise colic and seek assistance is a critical first step in determining case outcome. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess horse owners’ knowledge and opinions on recognising colic. Study design Cross‐sectional study. Methods An online questionnaire was distributed to horse owners with open and closed questions on their knowledge of normal clinical parameters in the horse, confidence and approach to recognising colic (including assessment through case scenarios), and their demographics. Descriptive and chi squared statistical analyses were performed. Results There were 1564 participants. Many respondents either did not know or provided incorrect estimates for their horse’s normal clinical parameters: only 45% (n = 693/1540) gave correct normal values for heart rate, 45% (n = 694/1541) for respiratory rate and 67% (n = 1028/1534) for rectal temperature. Knowledge of normal values was statistically associated with participants’ educational qualifications (P<0.01). Owners said if they suspected their horse had colic they would assess faecal output (76%; n = 1131/1486), gastrointestinal sounds (75%; n = 1113/1486), respiratory rate (65%; n = 967/1486) and heart rate (54%; n = 797/1486). There was a lack of consensus on whether to call a vet for behavioural signs of colic, unless the signs were severe or persistent. The majority of participants (61%) were confident that they could recognise most types of colic. In the case scenarios, 49% were confident deciding that a surgical case had colic, but 9% were confident deciding an impaction case had colic. Main limitations Most respondents were UK based; risk of self‐selection bias for owners with previous experience of colic. Conclusions There was marked variation in horse owners’ recognition and responses to colic, and significant gaps in knowledge. This highlights the need for the development of accessible educational resources to support owners’ decision‐making.