Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T13:11:09.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and testing of a novel instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQL) of farmed pigs and promote welfare enhancement (Part 1)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

ML Wiseman-Orr ,
EM Scott  and
AM Nolan
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was defined for farmed animals and identified as an appropriate focus of integrative welfare measurement for farmed pigs that embraces measurement of positive welfare. The instrument for HRQL measurement was developed specifically for use by farmers and stockpersons, the prime carers of pigs, to increase ownership of welfare improvement amongst those groups. Using a psychometric approach to instrument development, relevant observations were determined by consultation with experienced farmers and stockpersons. These observations included causal variables (cause changes in HRQL) and indicator variables (manifest changes in HRQL). The variables selected as items in the structured questionnaire instrument were those most commonly applied by farmers and stockpersons and also were assigned similar quality-of-life impact by a range of experts including pig veterinary specialists and welfare scientists. The prototype instrument comprises a questionnaire with 98 causal variable items (covering five domains of welfare according with the Five Freedoms) and 30 indicator variable items. It was pre-tested with farmers and stockpersons on commercial farm units and was found to have content (face) validity and high utility. This tool is a novel measure of HRQL in farmed pigs that encompasses the measurement of positive welfare and promotes a move from welfare assurance to welfare enhancement. Further validation of the instrument is described in a companion paper in this issue.

Keywords

animal welfarefarmed pigshealth-related quality of lifemeasurementpositive welfarepsychometric
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 535 - 548
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, FD, Toledano, SR, Miloslavich, K, Lackman-Zeman, L, Levy, JD, Gay, CL, Schuman, WB and Fishkin, PE 1999 The Miami Pediatric Quality of Life Questionnaire: parent scale. International Journal of Cancer 83(S12): 11–173.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcombe, J 2009 Animal pleasure and its moral significance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbacher, D 1999 Quality of life: evaluation or description? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 25–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A, Manteuffel, G, Jensen, MB, Moe, RO, Spruijt, B, Keeling, LJ, Winckler, C, Forkman, B, Dimitrov, I, Langbein, J, Bakken, M, Vessier, I and Aubert, A 2007 Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology & Behaviour 92: 375–397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bono, G and De Mori, B 2005 Animals and their quality of life: considerations ‘beyond mere welfare’. Veterinary Research Communications 29(S2): 165–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botreau, R, Veissier, I and Perny, P 2009 Overall assessment of animal welfare: strategy adopted in Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare 18: 363-370Google Scholar
Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MBM and Keeling, LJ 2007 Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 225–228Google Scholar
Brambell, EWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Breau, LM, McGrath, PJ, Camfield, C, Rosmus, C and Finley, GA 2000 Preliminary validation of an observational pain checklist for persons with cognitive impairmants and inability to communicate verbally. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 42: 609–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brod, M, Tesler, LE and Christensen, TL 2009 Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research 18: 1263–1278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, DC, Boston, R, Coyne, J and Farrar, JT 2007 The Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI): Development and psychometric testing of an instrument designed to measure chronic pain in companion dogs with osteoarthritis. American Journal of Veterinary Research 68: 631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courboulay, V, Eugene, A and Delarue, E 2009 Welfare assessment in 82 pig farms: effect of animal age and floor type on behaviour and injuries in fattening pigs. Animal Welfare 18: 515–521Google Scholar
Cummins, RA 2005 Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 49(10): 699–706CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAWC 2007 Report on Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2009 Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
EFRACom (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee) 2009 The English Pig Industry: First Report of Session 2008-09 [Online]. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvfru/96/9602.htm. (Accessed 2 February 2010)Google Scholar
Fayers, PM and Hand, DJ 2002 Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: an example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 165: 1–22Google Scholar
Fayers, PM and Machin, D 2007 Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Second Edition pp 128. Wiley: Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2009 Animal behaviour, animals, welfare and the scientific study of affect. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, LM, Rush, JE, Farabaugh, AE and Must, A 2005 Development and evaluation of a questionnaire for assessing health-related quality of life in dogs with cardiac disease. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226(11): 1864–1868CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garratt, A, Schmidt, L, Mackintosh, A and Fitzpatrick, R 2002 Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal 324: 1–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, JG, Johnson, AK and McGlone, JJ 2008 The welfare of growing-finishing pigs. In: Faucitano, L and Schaefer, AL (eds) Welfare of Pigs from Birth to Slaughter pp 133–159. Wageningen Academic Publishers: The Netherlands/Éditions Quæ: Versailles, FranceGoogle Scholar
Goossens, X, Sobry, L, Ödberg, F, Tuyttens, F, Maes, D, De Smet, S, Nevens, F, Opsomer, G, Lommelen, F and Geers, R 2008 A population-based on-farm evaluation protocol for comparing the welfare of pigs between farms. Animal Welfare 17: 35–41Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL and Coleman, GJ 2009 The integration of human-animal relations into animal welfare monitoring schemes. Animal Welfare 18: 335–345Google Scholar
Hielm-Björkman, AK, Kuusela, E, Lipman, A, Markkola, A, Saarto, E, Huttunen, P, Leppaluoto, J, Tulamo, R-M and Raekallio, M 2003 Evaluation of methods for assessment of pain associated with chronic osteoarthritis in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 222(11): 1552–1558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, JT, Slater, MR, Taylor, L, Scott, HM and Kerwin, SC 2004 Assessing repeatability and validity of a visual analogue scale questionnaire for use in assessing pain and lameness in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65(12): 1634–1643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeling, LJ 2008 An analysis of animal-based versus resource-based comments in official animal welfare inspection reports from organic and conventional farms in Sweden. Animal Welfare 18: 391–397Google Scholar
Kirkwood, JK 2004 The importance of welfare. In: Perry, GC (ed) Welfare of the Laying Hen pp 1–7. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Knierim, U and Winkler, C 2009 On-farm welfare assessment in cattle: validity, reliability and feasibility issues and future perspectives with special regard to the Welfare Quality® approach. Animal Welfare 18: 451–458Google Scholar
Leach, MC, Thornton, PD and Main, DCJ 2008 Identification of appropriate measures for the assessment of laboratory mouse welfare. Animal Welfare 17: 161–170Google Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Edwards, SA, Butterworth, A, Whay, HR and Main, DCJ 2009 Interdependence of welfare outcome measures and potential confounding factors on finishing pig farms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 121: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullan, S, Whay, HR, Butterworth, A, Edwards, SA and Main, DCJ 2008 A consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK farm assurance. Book of Abstracts of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level. WAFL: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Ofner, E, Schmid, E, Schröck, E, Troxler, J and Hausleitner, A 2007 Self-evaluation of animal welfare by the farmer: a report of application on Austrian cattle farms. Animal Welfare 16: 245–248Google Scholar
Scott, K, Binnendijk, GP, Edwards, SA, Guy, JH, Kiezebrink, MC and Vermeer, HM 2009 Preliminary evaluation of a prototype welfare monitoring system for sows and piglets (Welfare Quality project). Animal Welfare 18: 441–449Google Scholar
Scott, EM, Fitzpatrick, JL, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Wiseman, ML 2003 Evaluation of welfare state based on interpretation of multiple indices. Animal Welfare 12: 457–468Google Scholar
Smulders, D, Verbeke, G, Mormède, P and Geers, R 2006 Validation of a behavioural observation tool to assess pig welfare. Physiology and Behaviour 89: 438–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theunissen, NCM, Vogels, TGC, Koopman, GHW, Zwinderman, KAH and Verloove-Varni, JW 1998 Available at http://www.pedsql.org/pedsqI3.html. (Accessed 8 February 2010)Google Scholar
Watson, M, Edwards, L, Von Essen, L, Davidson, J, Day, R and Pinkerton, R 1999 Development of the Royal Marsden Hospital Paediatric Oncology Quality of Life Questionnaire. International Journal of Cancer 83(S12): 65–703.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science 30(S): 21–25Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, EA, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2000 The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expression in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67(3): 193–215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wemelsfelder, F, Hunter, TE, Mendl, MT and Lawrence, AB 2001 Assessing the ‘whole animal’: a free-choice profiling approach. Animal Behaviour 62: 209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F, Nevison, I and Lawrence, AB 2009 The effect of perceived environmental background on qualitative assessments of pig behaviour. Animal Behaviour 78: 477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, HR, Leeb, C, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2007 Preliminary assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal-based measurements. Animal Welfare 16: 209–211Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Animal-based measures for the assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205–217Google Scholar
Wiseman, ML, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Scott, EM 2001 Preliminary study on owner-reported behaviour changes associated with chronic pain in dogs. Veterinary Record 149: 423–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Nolan, AM, Reid, J and Scott, EM 2004 Development of a questionnaire to measure the effects of chronic pain on health-related quality of life in dogs. American Journal of Veterinary Research 65(8): 1077–1084CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Scott, EM, Sandercock, DA and Nolan, AM 2008 Development of a health-related quality of life measurement tool for use with farmed pigs: phase 1. Poster presented at BBSRC Animal Welfare Programme Workshop. May 2008, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Wiseman-Orr, ML, Scott, EM, Reid, J and Nolan, AM 2006 Validation of a structured questionnaire as an instrument to measure chronic pain in dogs on the basis of effects on health-related quality of life. American Journal of Veterinary Research 67(11): 1826–1836CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 2). Animal Welfare 20: 549–558Google Scholar
Yazbek, KV and Fantoni, DT 2005 Validity of the health-related quality-of-life scale for dogs with signs of pain secondary to cancer. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226: 1354–1358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeates, JW and Main, DCJ 2008 Assessment of positive welfare: a review. The Veterinary Journal 175: 293–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed