The use of objective gait analysis tools is becoming increasingly popular in equine research. The advancement of these technologies seeks to promote objective, mobile solutions which can be applied in equine training, monitoring or clinical contexts. This has led to the introduction of various tools in the commercial sphere. However, there has been slow adoption of objective technologies in the applied field. The purpose of this study was to understand existing equine movement analysis processes. We undertook qualitative interviews with industry stakeholders in the elite field to understand what key information they gather through their own, subjective analysis of the horse. We then mapped this information onto the capabilities of existing technologies to see what opportunities exist for user-driven technology solutions in this area. Our study highlights the need for knowledge exchange in the development and deployment of technologies within the equine industry. Commonalities in the important movement features identified by the stakeholders are presented that could be usefully considered and interpreted by future technology developers and researchers with respect to the underpinning biomechanical parameters. Objective technologies designed to capture and integrate these user-based parameters could be developed to augment the current subjective practices in equine analysis and monitoring.
VerhagenEVoogtNBruinsmaA, et al. A knowledge transfer scheme to bridge the gap between science and practice: an integration of existing research frameworks into a tool for practice. Br J Sports Med2014; 48: 698–701.
3.
GagnonMPPayne-GagnonJBretonE, et al. Adoption of electronic personal health records in Canada: perceptions of stakeholders. Int J Health Policy and Manag2016; 5: 425–433.
4.
TaoD.Intention to use and actual use of electronic information resources: further exploring Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). AMIA Annu Symp Proc2009; 2009: 629–633.
5.
CamplingNCPittsDGKnightPV, et al. A qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of telehealthcare devices (ii) barriers to uptake of telehealthcare devices. BMC Health Serv Res2017; 17: 466.
6.
HershW.Health care information technology: progress and barriers. JAMA2004; 292: 2273–2274.
7.
ChristodoulakisCAsgarianAEasterbrookS. Barriers to adoption of information technology in healthcare. In: CASCON ‘17 proceedings of the 27th annual international conference on computer science and software engineering, Toronto, ON, Canada, 6–8 November 2017, pp.66–75. Riverton, NJ: IBM.
8.
BatheAJudyCDysonS.Letter to the editor: do we have to redefine lameness in the era of quantitative gait analysis?Equine Vet J2018; 50: 273.
9.
LehouxPSaint-ArnaudJRichardL. The use of technology at home: what patient manuals say and sell vs. what patients face and fear. Sociol Health Illn2004; 26: 617–644.
10.
CamplingNCPittsDGKnightPV, et al. A qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of telehealthcare devices (i) are they meeting the needs of end-users?BMC Health Serv Res2017; 17: 455.
11.
De LeonibusVBartosovaRLewisE. ALT market in the UK – AKTIVE market report: initial overview. AKTIVE Research Report, CIRCLE, University of Leeds, Leeds, May2013.
12.
EganSBramaPMcGrathD.Research trends in equine movement analysis, future opportunities and potential barriers in the digital age: a scoping review from 1978–2018. Equine Vet J2019; 51: 813–824.
13.
McGreevyPDSundinMKarlsteenM, et al. Problems at the human–horse interface and prospects for smart textile solutions. J Vet Behav2014; 9: 34–42.
14.
BragançaFMSRhodinMvan WeerenPR. On the brink of daily clinical application of objective gait analysis: what evidence do we have so far from studies using an induced lameness model?Vet J2018; 234: 11–23.
CorballyAFFaheyAG.The contribution of the sport horse industry to the Irish economy. Dublin: University College Dublin, 2017.
20.
SmithBSparkesAC.Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. London: Routledge, 2016.
21.
MawdsleyAKellyESmithF, et al. Linear assessment of the Thoroughbred horse: an approach to conformation evaluation. Equine Vet J1996; 28: 461–467.
22.
St GeorgeLHobbsSJSinclairJ, et al. Does equestrian knowledge and experience influence selection and training practices for showjumping horses?Comp Exerc Physiol2019; 15: 123–135.
23.
McGreevyPDMcLeanAWarren-SmithAK, et al. Defining the terms and processes associated with equitation. In: 1st international equitation science sysposium, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 26–27August2005, pp.10–43. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Sydney University Press.
24.
SederJAVickeryCEIII. The relationship of subsequent racing performance to foreleg flight patterns during racing speed workouts of unraced 2-year-old Thoroughbred racehorses at auctions. J Equine Vet Sci2005; 25: 505–522.
25.
MorscherS.An analysis of conformation and performance variables in potential three day event horses in Ireland, Master’s thesis, University of Limerick, Limerick, 2010.
26.
BuckleyPDunnTMoreSJ.Owners’ perceptions of the health and performance of Pony Club horses in Australia. Prev Vet Med2004; 63: 121–133.
27.
ThompsonCJLuckLMKeshwaniJ, et al. Location on the body of a wearable accelerometer affects accuracy of data for identifying equine gaits. J Equine Vet Sci2018; 63: 1–7.
28.
de MiraMSantosCLopesM, et al. Challenges encountered by Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) veterinarians in gait evaluation during FEI endurance competitions: an international survey. Comp Exerc Physiol2019; 15: 371–378.
29.
ClementsJPA. How to approach the ‘poor mover’ (BEVA Congress). Birmingham: British Equine Veterinary Association, 2019.
30.
van WeerenPPfauTRhodinM, et al. What is lameness and what (or who) is the gold standard to detect it?Equine Vet J2018; 50: 549–551.
31.
KeeganKG.Reliability of equine visual lameness classification. Vet Rec2019; 184: 60–62.
32.
PfauT.Sensor-based equine gait analysis: more than meets the eye?UK-Vet Equine2019; 3: 102–112.
33.
ButtfieldAPolglazeT.People, not technology, should drive innovation in elite sport. Sensoria: J Min Brain Cult2016; 12: 10–12.
34.
RichardsonHCollinsRWilliamsJ.Sport science relevance and integration in horseracing: perceptions of UK racehorse trainers. Comp Exerc Physiol2019; 1–16.
35.
ColemanS.Biomechanics and its application to coaching practice. In: CrossNLyleJ (eds) The coaching process: principles and practice for sport. Oxford: Reed Educational and Professional Publishing, 1998, pp.131–141.
36.
YilmazIYalcinN.The relationship of procedural and declarative knowledge of science teacher candidates in newton’s laws of motion to understanding. Am Int J Contemp Res2012; 2: 50–56.
37.
MorrisonAWallaceES. The golf coaching–biomechanics interface. In: TomsM (ed.) Routledge international handbook of golf science. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017, pp.5–14.
38.
NormanDADraperSW.User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1986.
39.
MaoJ-YVredenburgKSmithPW, et al. The state of user-centered design practice. Commun ACM2005; 48: 105–109.
40.
McFarlandDJHamiltonD.Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Comput Hum Behav2006; 22: 427–447.
41.
Briz-PonceLGarcia-PenalvoFJ.An empirical assessment of a technology acceptance model for apps in medical education. J Med Syst2015; 39: 176.
42.
CvitanovicCHobdayAJvan KerkhoffL, et al. Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manage2015; 112: 25–35.
