Examining the Relationship Between Existing Community Resources and Community Leaders' Perceptions of Resilience and Rural Health During COVID-19.

This study explored the relationship between existing community resources and community leaders' perceptions of resilience and rural health during COVID-19. Observational data of material capitals (e.g., grocery stores and physical activity resources) present in five rural communities involved in a health promotion project were collected and compared with key informant interviews of perceived community health and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis compares the differences in community leaders' perceptions of resilience during the pandemic to the actual material capitals of the community. While these rural counties were average in terms of available physical activity and nutritional resources, the onset of the pandemic led to varying degrees of disruption in access due to structural closures of mainstay resources, as well as residents perceiving that they cannot or should not access available resources. In addition, county coalition progress was stalled as individuals and groups could not gather together to complete projects, such as building playground equipment. This study demonstrates that existing quantitative instruments, such as NEMS and PARA, fail to take into account perceived access and utility of resources. Therefore, practitioners should consider multiple ways to evaluate resources, capacity, and progress on a health intervention or program and consider community voice to ensure feasibility, relevance, and sustainability-especially when faced with a public health emergency like COVID-19.

Using dialogue-centered approaches to community-engaged research: an application of dialectical inquiry.

Rural communities across the United States experience increased risk and prevalence of chronic diseases associated with both individual and community-based factors. Thus, there is a need for rural capacity development for chronic disease prevention. Traditional health promotion and intervention approaches often focus on diet-related health disparities from a positivist, evidence-based paradigm. To counter positivist bias within health promotion research, a hybridized approach is proposed using a critical-constructivist paradigm incorporating dialectical thinking, appreciative inquiry, and dialectical inquiry to address cultural and structural barriers, as well as community-based social norms, through evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions. Three dialectical models were identified through interviews with community coalition members: social ties, infrastructure, and worldviews, examining underlying assumptions and counter assumptions. By revealing the dialectic assumptions and counter assumptions within project implementation, practitioners can engage in constructive dialogue with communities to determine more effective and culturally responsive pathways for project development.

Show Horse Welfare: The Viewpoints of Judges, Stewards, and Show Managers.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the current state of stock-type show horse welfare based on the perceptions of show officials and to identify potential means of preventing and intervening in compromises to show horse welfare. Thirteen horse show officials, including judges, stewards, and show managers, were interviewed. Findings revealed the officials had an incomplete understanding of nonhuman animal welfare and a high level of concern regarding the public's perception of show horse welfare. The officials attributed most of the frequently observed compromises to show horse welfare to (a) novices', amateurs', and young trainers' lack of experience or expertise, and (b) trainers' and owners' unrealistic expectations and prioritization of winning over horse welfare. The officials emphasized a need for distribution of responsibility among associations, officials, and individuals within the industry. Although the officials noted recent observable positive changes in the industry, they emphasized the need for continued improvements in equine welfare and greater educational opportunities for stakeholders.

Show Horse Welfare: Horse Show Competitors' Understanding, Awareness, and Perceptions of Equine Welfare.

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of stock-type horse show competitors' understanding of welfare and level of concern for stock-type show horses' welfare. Data were collected through an online questionnaire that included questions relating to (a) interest and general understanding of horse welfare, (b) welfare concerns of the horse show industry and specifically the stock-type horse show industry, (c) decision-making influences, and (d) level of empathic characteristics. The majority of respondents indicated they agree or strongly agree that physical metrics should be a factor when assessing horse welfare, while fewer agreed that behavioral and mental metrics should be a factor. Respondent empathy levels were moderate to high and were positively correlated with the belief that mental and behavioral metrics should be a factor in assessing horse welfare. Respondents indicated the inhumane practices that most often occur at stock-type shows include excessive jerking on reins, excessive spurring, and induced excessive unnatural movement. Additionally, respondents indicated association rules, hired trainers, and hired riding instructors are the most influential regarding the decisions they make related to their horses' care and treatment.