Evaluating the effectiveness of therapeutic horse riding for children and young people experiencing disability: a single-case experimental design study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Therapeutic horse riding aims to improve the health of children and young people experiencing disability; however, its benefits across a range of health domains, particularly the impact on participation outcomes, are not well known. This research evaluated to what extent there was a change in riders balance, functional performance, social responsiveness, quality of life and participation outcomes as a result of therapeutic horse riding.Methods: A multiple-baseline across participants (n = 12) single-case experimental design, with randomly allocated baseline phase lengths, quantitatively evaluated how riders responded to a 20-week intervention.Results: Social participation outcomes measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure demonstrated the most consistent positive between-phase differences (performance ES = 1.20, 95% CI [0.82, 1.63]; satisfaction ES = 1.11, 95% CI [0.73, 1.55]). A causal relationship was seen in three riders, but improvements only reached clinical significance for two riders when accounting for phase data trends. No significant outcome patterns were found comparing riders with principally physical impairments to those with principally psychosocial impairments.Conclusions: Being involved in therapeutic horse riding may improve rider’s social participation in home, school and community settings. We postulate that rider self-concept development may be a mechanism of treatment effect leading to participation-level changes.Implications for rehabilitationSocial participation was the health outcome demonstrating the most consistent change following therapeutic horse riding, regardless of rider impairment.Therapeutic horse riding can improve social participation in settings beyond the riding arena.Greater intervention tailoring based on rider responses may enhance therapeutic horse riding intervention effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".