Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:30:44.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Development and testing of a novel instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) of farmed pigs and promote welfare enhancement (Part 2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

ML Wiseman-Orr
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, 15 University Gardens, University of Glasgow G12 8QW, UK
EM Scott*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, 15 University Gardens, University of Glasgow G12 8QW, UK
AM Nolan
Affiliation:
College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Marian.Scott@glasgow.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The development of a novel structured questionnaire instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) in individual farmed pigs was described previously (companion paper). The instrument embraces the measurement of positive welfare, and was developed with farmers and stockpersons, for use by them on-farm. This paper describes the development of a scoring methodology for the instrument and provides evidence for its construct validity. Field testing on four commercial farm units indicated that scores for health and affect correctly allocated 88.7% of pigs to known treatment groups and strongly predicted previously defined intervention levels. The tool was also used in an experimental study alongside other measures to identify the impact of early-life challenges (mixing of pregnant gilts and tail-docking neonatal pigs) on subsequent pig welfare, and identified long-term changes in HRQL of prenatally stressed piglets, a finding supported by other measures. This work describes a novel approach to farm-level welfare assessment in which entirely animal-based HRQL measurement can provide a measure of welfare at the herd level while retaining information about individuals within the herd and about aspects of provision that can be targets of intervention to improve welfare, and promotes a move from welfare assurance to welfare enhancement.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abu-Saad, HH 2001 Commentary. Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition 85: F40F41Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Capdeville, J, Perny, P and Veissier, I 2008 Multicriteria evaluation of animal welfare at farm level: an application of MCDA methodologies. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences 33(4): 287316Google Scholar
Dewey, CE 2008 Assessing the health status of populations of animals in relation to welfare. Book of Abstracts of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. WAFL: Ghent, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Eiser, C and Morse, R 2001 A review of measures of quality of life for children with chromic illness. Archives of Disease in Childhood 84: 205211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2010 Five Freedoms. Available at http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm. (Accessed 28 May 2010)Google Scholar
Fayers, P and Hand, DJ 2002 Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 165: 122Google Scholar
Fayers, PM and Machin, D 2007 Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Second Edition. Wiley: Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S, Moinard, C, Robson, SK, Baxter, E, Ormandy, E, Douglas, AJ, Seckl, JR, Russell, JA and Lawrence, AB 2006 Programming the offspring of the pig by prenatal social stress: neuroendocrine activity and behaviour. Hormones and Behaviour 49: 6880CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Learning and Skills Network 2009 Evaluation of the Scottish Funding Council's strategy for quality enhancement in the college sector; Annual Report, year one. Learning and Skills Network: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ 2009 Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 97104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunally, JC and Bernstein, IH 1994 Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) 2003 Handbook for Enhancement-Led Institutional Review: Scotland. Available at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/elir/handbook/scottish_hbook_preface.asp. (Accessed 17 August 2010)Google Scholar
Rutherford, KMD 2011 Early influences on welfare in the domestic pig. Oral presentation at BBSRC Animal Welfare Programme Dissemination Workshop. 22 February 2011, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Sandercock, DA, Gibson, IF, Brash, HM, Rutherford, KMD, Scott, EM and Nolan, AM 2009 Development of a mechanical stimulator and force measurement system for the assessment of nociceptive thresholds in pigs. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 182: 6470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stallard, P, Williams, L, Vellman, R, Lenton, S, McGrath, PJ and Taylor, G 2002 The development and validation of the pain indicator for cognitively impaired children (PICIC) Pain 98: 145149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streiner, DL and Norman, GR 2008 Health measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, Fourth Edition. OUP: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Scott, EM and Nolan, AM 2011 Development and testing of a novel instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) of farmed pigs and promote welfare enhancement (Part 1). Animal Welfare 20: 535548Google Scholar