A key welfare problem for horses is that people commonly fail to recognise, and consequently neglect to resolve, equine behavioural signs of distress, worsening the welfare of the horse and potentially putting the safety of the handler at risk as a result. Members of equestrian Facebook groups were asked to view six videos and assess the horse’s behaviour in each; the authors selected the videos and considered each video to demonstrate behaviour associated with negative affective states. An additional six equine behaviourists also completed the survey as an “expert comparison group” from whom we could define “correct” answers; their responses were consistent with each other and the views of the authors. Although the majority of respondents successfully recognised behaviour indicative of distress in some instances, behaviour associated with negative affective states was commonly missed; videos featuring natural horsemanship and bridle-less riding were particularly interpreted incorrectly to be positive experiences for the horses. Binary logistic regression analysis (72.1% success rate) confirmed that the different video types (ridden dressage, natural horsemanship, in-hand dressage, bridle-less riding, Western reining and behavioural rehabilitation) were strong predictors for obtaining a correct answer (p < 0.01) but that experience of equine-ownership was not. Of the equestrian activities preferred by participants, only proponents of clicker training showed an increased likelihood of obtaining the correct answer (p = 0.05). Even when behavioural signs suggestive of negative affective states were recognised, a minority of respondents stated that they would be happy for their horse to be treated similarly. In conclusion, behavioural signs of equine distress are poorly recognised; they therefore warrant an increased prominence in education and the outreach activity of welfare organisations, in order to reduce equine suffering.

McLean Hospital's College Mental Health Program was established four years ago as an institutional response to escalating, national college mental health concerns. The critical factors underlying the college mental health crisis in this country have been debated, examined, and addressed almost exclusively within college and university settings. McLean Hospital is the first psychiatric hospital to develop a comprehensive college student program that bridges the gap between a psychiatric hospital and multiple campus settings as an attempt to address the specific needs of college student-patients across levels of psychiatric care and diagnostic areas/programs. Using a bioecological systems framework, this review examines (1) the strategic clinical, education/outreach, and research efforts that collectively represent a paradigm shift to extend responsibility for addressing serious college mental health challenges beyond college and university campuses, (2) the challenges and benefits of creating stronger multi-campus/hospital collaborations in order to improve our understanding of college students with serious mental illness, and (3) the progress in addressing these needs more effectively and in establishing documented best practices and policies through effective and innovative partnerships.

One of the key welfare concerns for horses in the United Kingdom is lack of recognition of fear in horses. This study aimed to gain an understanding of how well horse care givers recognise fear and/or anxiety in horses by interviewing equine behaviourists (who interact with large numbers of horse care givers and talk to them about this topic routinely). The experiences of Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC)-registered equine behaviourists working with horse caregivers were examined, including the ability of clients to recognise fear and/or anxiety in horses, how clients respond when discussing fear as the reason for their horse’s behaviour, and what explanations the participants use to explain fear and anxiety. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine participants and analysed using thematic analysis before being written up to reflect the discussion points. When asked how well horse caregivers recognise fear and/or anxiety in horses, three key response themes emerged: caregivers are extremely poor at recognizing fear and anxiety in horses; some clients do recognise behavioural signs indicating fear and/or anxiety but only the overt signs (e.g., rearing, running away) rather than the more subtle signs (e.g., tension in face, subtle avoidance behaviours such as a hesitant gait); and fear and/or anxiety behaviour is often misinterpreted or mislabelled. These key themes recurred throughout several other interview questions. This study has provided initial insights into the lack of recognition of fear and anxiety of horses by their caregivers in the United Kingdom as well as tried and tested approaches to conversations to change this. Such synthesis of experience and techniques across the equine behaviour sector, together with the information gained regarding perception of equine caregivers, could be a valuable approach to improve the effectiveness of behaviour consultations and welfare initiatives.

A key welfare concern for the equine population in the U.K. has been identified as delayed death, leading to prolonged suffering of horses. Reasons why some horse owners fail to have their horses euthanised include financial cost, emotional attachment, peer pressure, negative attitudes towards killing and poor recognition of behavioural indicators of equine pain and stress. The Five Freedoms framework of welfare was used to build a Likert-style survey to investigate the factors underlying attitudes of horse owners towards welfare measures in an end-of-life decision. Participants were asked to respond to hypothetical welfare scenarios and to give details of any horses they had had euthanised. The survey was conducted predominantly via equestrian Facebook groups and obtained 160 participant responses. Reliability of the scale was acceptable, with Cronbach’s α=0.89. Principal Component Analysis was used to load the hypothetical scenarios onto seven factors containing 62.2% of the variance. The first four factors could be categorized according to “Ethology-informed Management”, “Traditional Horse Management”, “Emotional Issues” and “Physical Issues”. Participants were more likely to consider euthanasia for physical issues, compared with issues relating to affective state and/or ethology, although it was not clear whether this was due to disregard for welfare issues relating to mental health or failure to recognise them as such. A large number of responses stated that the scenario had no bearing on whether a horse should be euthanised, again suggesting a lack of recognition of welfare issues and their implications. When asked to state their reasons for euthanising their horses, participants cited almost exclusively physical reasons, with the exception of those citing dangerous behaviour. Only a small number of responses also included consideration of affective and/or ethological factors, suggesting that welfare issues concerning affective state and/or behaviour are at risk of omission from end-of-life decisions.