Adaptive or therapeutic riding (A/TR) is a recreational activity which provides mounted and ground-based horsemanship opportunities adapted to the abilities of the participants. A/TR provides physical and psychological benefits to participants with diverse disabilities, including physical, developmental, cognitive, and age-related disabilities, promoting higher quality of life. A/TR professionals may be limited in their capacity to implement outcome assessments and report the benefits of their community-based A/TR services to a broad audience. The purpose of this study was to identify whether and how A/TR professionals currently measure participant outcomes; benefits and barriers to implementing standardized assessments in A/TR; and characteristics which would make assessments useful in the community-based A/TR environment. To address this purpose, we conducted a survey among A/TR professionals. We found that while A/TR professionals measure outcomes among their participants, they typically do not use standardized assessments. Survey respondents believed benefits of implementing standardized assessments included bolstering the A/TR profession, acquiring funding, and communicating about A/TR services to a broad audience. Respondents also identified several barriers to implementing standardized assessments including time, systemic, and expertise constraints. Respondents reported that useful standardized assessments would be relevant to all age groups and populations who receive A/TR services. Finally, respondents shared that for standardized assessments to be useful, they would need to be low-cost, require less than 10-20 min, and available in either paper or computer format. This study revealed that standardized assessments may be a strong support to the A/TR profession; however, assessments must meet the unique needs of A/TR professionals.

<b>Background:</b> The TRAIL1 trial was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with RA-ILD. <b>Methods:</b> TRAIL1 was a phase 2 trial intended to enroll 270 adult patients with established RA-ILD.&nbsp;Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2,403 mg oral pirfenidone or placebo. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite endpoint of decline from baseline in percent predicted FVC% of 10% or greater or death during the 52-week treatment period. <b>Findings:</b> The difference in those who met the primary endpoint was not significant (11.1% on pirfenidone vs. 15% on placebo, [OR=0.67 (0.22, 2.03), p=0.48]).&nbsp;Subjects receiving pirfenidone had a slower rate of decline in lung function as measured by estimated annual change in FVC(ml) (-66 vs. -146, p=0.0082) and FVC(%) (-1.02 vs. -3.21, p=0.0028).&nbsp;This effect on decline was also seen when analyzed within participants with baseline usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern on HRCT (FVC(ml) (-43 vs. -169, p=0.0014) and FVC% (-0.2 vs. -3.81, p=0.0002)).&nbsp;There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment-emergent serious adverse events. <b>Interpretation:</b> Due to early termination of the study, results should be interpreted with caution. Despite being underpowered to evaluate the primary endpoint, pirfenidone slowed the rate of decline of FVC over time in subjects with RA-ILD.&nbsp;Safety in patients with RA-ILD was similar to that seen in other pirfenidone trials.

Simple SummaryAlthough animals are being employed for a growing number of roles to support people, the terms used to describe those animals (e.g., “therapy animal” and “emotional support animal”) can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different types of work, or the same role can be described with different terms. This paper presents the results of a collaboration between over 100 researchers, practitioners, and end users of animal-based supports from all over the world. We created working definitions for the following nine terms: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. In this paper, we describe the defining characteristics of each animal type and how it is different from the other types. We recommend phasing out the terms “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”, because they are similar to other terms. We discuss how our definitions may be received in different parts of the world.The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

Objectives: To recommend (1) the adoption of optimal terminology for referring to services in the United States that incorporate horses and other equines to benefit people, and (2) the discontinuation of especially problematic terminology. Design: A diverse multidisciplinary consortium of individuals, including representatives of relevant national organizations, participated in an inclusive, systematic, and comprehensive 2-year consensus-building process. Results: Twelve specific types of services were identified that relate to one of three broad areas of professional work: therapy, learning, or horsemanship. Related to the area of therapy, five distinct types of therapies were identified: counseling, occupational therapy, physical therapy, psychotherapy, and speech-language pathology. Therapy-first language is recommended that foregrounds the exact therapy (e.g., physical therapy) and adds precise equine-related descriptors as warranted (e.g., physical therapy using equine movement). Related to the area of learning, three distinct types of nontherapy services were identified. The recommended terminology for referring to these services is equine-assisted learning in education, equine-assisted learning in organizations, and equine-assisted learning in personal development. Related to the area of horsemanship, four distinct types of nontherapy services were identified. The recommended terminology for referring to these services is adaptive equestrian sports, adaptive riding or therapeutic riding, driving, and interactive vaulting. The plural term, equine-assisted services, is recommended as a concise shorthand for easily referencing multiple services that differ from each other, yet share the horse as a common thread. Terms recommended for discontinuation include equine therapy, equine-assisted activities and therapies, equine-assisted therapy, equestrian therapy, hippotherapist, hippotherapy clinic (program), horse therapy, horseback riding therapy, and therapy riding. The consensus-building process culminated in extensive but not unanimous endorsements of all terminology recommendations. Conclusions: Terminology recommended for adoption clearly describes and distinguishes 12 distinct types of services. Terminology recommended for discontinuation was found to be ambiguous, misleading, no longer useful, or to have adversely affected stakeholders. It is hoped that all recommendations will prove useful and serve to enhance the professionalism and viability of specific identified services. It is also hoped that improved precision and clarity in terminology for naming specific services will advance their future scientific development and reliable measurement of effectiveness. Not all terminology-related challenges were resolved, however, and new challenges will likely arise as services continue to evolve and diversify. Significant impacts, if any, of the terminology recommendations herein merit ongoing monitoring and the question of optimal terminology merits revisiting in the foreseeable future.

There is a lack of current research to support the efficacy of a combination of equine-assisted activities (EAA) and brain building activities to influence motor skill competencies in youth with neurodevelopmental disorders (ND). The primary objective of this study was to quantify changes in motor skill proficiency before and after 8 weeks of EAA and brain-building activities in youth with ND. A secondary objective was to quantify changes in motor skill proficiency before and after 1 year of EAA and brain-building activities in youth with ND. Twenty-five youth completed the same 32-week protocol that was separated into 4, 8-week blocks, in the following order: (1) control; (2) EAA-only; (3) washout; (4) GaitWay block (EAA and brain building activities). Before and after each block, motor skills were assessed using the Short Form of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Version 2 (BOT-2). Seven youth continued with the GaitWay intervention for one additional year, and the BOT-2 Short Form was also administered following this intervention. A repeated-measures analysis-of-variance was performed to compare BOT-2 subtest and overall scores between interventions with a significance of 0.05. Manual dexterity was higher at Post-Washout [3.3 (2.4)] vs. Pre-Control [2.2 (2.1); p = 0.018] and Post-Control [2.6 (2.0); p = 0.024], and at Post-GaitWay vs. Pre-Control [3.2 (2.4) vs. 2.2 (2.1); p = 0.037]. Upper-limb coordination was higher at Post-GaitWay vs. Post-Control [6.0 (4.1) vs. 3.9 (3.8); p = 0.050]. When compared to Pre-Control [3.2 (3.0)], strength was higher at Post-EAA [4.9 (3.5); p = 0.028] and at Post-GaitWay [5.2 (2.9); p = 0.015]. Overall scores were higher at Post-GaitWay [39.1 (22.2)] when compared to Pre-Control [32.4 (21.6); p = 0.003] and Post-Control [32.5 (21.9); p = 0.009]. Additionally, motor skills were maintained for 1 year following the Post-GaitWay testing session among seven participants. This is the first known study to include and demonstrate the short-term and long-term effects of a combination of EAA and brain building activities with motor proficiency in youth with ND.Clinical Trial Registration: Motor Skill Proficiency After Equine-Assisted Activities and Brain-building Tasks; www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04158960.

This article presents a reflective case study of an applied consultancy experience with a 22-year-old professional rugby league player. The primary aim of the intervention was to provide the client a confidential space where he could discuss his experiences in and outside of a sporting context while also exploring and challenging his core values and beliefs. The consultancy process lasted for 12 mo, leading to the development of a strong relationship. During this time, the client experienced multiple critical moments such as deselection from the first-team squad and contract negotiations, which at times led to reductions in his well-being and forced the trainee sport and exercise psychologist to consider his scope of practice in relation to mental health and depression. Reflections are provided that explore the possibility of referral during these moments. The case study also provides insight into the trainee sport and exercise psychologist’s philosophy of practice and how influential this can be when considering referral of a client. The importance of supervisor support during uncertain moments is highlighted, and the case study concludes with reflections from the client, trainee practitioner, and peer supervisor regarding the efficacy of the intervention and the decision not to refer.

Individuals with sensory-integration delays may have some deficit in motor planning, or difficulty interacting with and influencing their surroundings. The demonstration of age-appropriate motor skills is therefore a primary outcome measure in this population. Therapeutic horseback riding may provide the necessary physical adaptations to improve motor skill proficiency. PURPOSE: To characterize motor skill proficiency following 8 weeks of therapeutic horseback riding with sensory integration therapy in children with sensory processing dysfunction. METHODS: Twenty-seven children, ages 5 to 18 years, were recruited. All participants completed the same 32-week protocol that was separated into 4, 8-week blocks: a) a control period (no riding); b) a riding only period; c) a washout period (no riding); d) riding with additional sensory integration therapy (combination). Before and after each period, motor skills were assessed using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test for Motor Proficiency (2ndedition). A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used to determine any differences between testing periods. A significance level of 0.05 was used. RESULTS: All subtest scores were statistically similar (p > 0.05), with the exception of manual dexterity, which was different between pre-control and post-washout (p = 0.018), post-control and post-washout (p = 0.024), and pre-control and post-combination (p = 0.037). Overall scores were different between pre-control and post-combination (p = 0.003) and post-control and post-combination (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Therapeutic riding may have a latent effect of improving overall motor skills in children with sensory processing dysfunction.Table 1: Average and overall scores on the BOT-2 subtests at different time pointsValues are mean±s.d. Means with the same superscript are statistically similar (p > 0.05). BOT-2 = Bruininks-Oseretsky Test for Motor Proficiency (2nd edition); Max = maximum possible score.

A high percentage of equestrians will experience accidents, with different degrees of severity, throughout their riding careers. Horse-related injuries have the highest likelihood of requiring hosp...

The more one rides or handles horses, the more likely one is to have a horse-related injury. These injuries are caused by many factors, including those generated by other riders, handlers or spectators. An analysis of 266 cases of injured equestrians showed that 16% of those injuries were caused by other humans. A panel of horse riding safety experts felt 63% were preventable, and the injured individuals themselves felt 51% were preventable. The study findings suggest that increased awareness of the role others play in causing horse-related injuries and increased education about common people-caused injuries could reduce the number of horse-riding and handling injuries, and medical visits to physicians, emergency rooms, and hospitalizations. Management implicationsHorse riding organizations and businesses such as guest ranches, horse parks, and training centers, which bring many individuals together with various levels of equine experience, should include an orientation to horse safety, especially noting the role of other humans in causing injuries, that explains how to avoid some of the most common accidents.