I am looking forward to the 4th International Dog Health Workshop (IDHW) co-hosted by the Kennel Club and International Partnership for dogs in Windsor at the end of May. I have been helping to organise one of the themes, Breed Specific Health Strategies, which is the subject of a series of workshop sessions. I will also be making a short presentation on this topic in the Day 1 plenary session.
When I spoke at the 3rd IDHW in 2017, I started by saying that the challenge we face is not a veterinary one, nor even a scientific one. My view was that the challenge we faced was a change management one and how to drive continuous improvement in breed health. This year, I will be saying the challenge is not “are you improving?” but “how fast are you improving?” and “can you prove it?”. Frankly, describing all the actions that are being taken is no longer good enough. If we can’t measure the impact on breed health, we can’t demonstrate that any of those actions were of value.
Prof. Åke Hedhammar, who is leading the theme on extremes and exaggerations in dog conformation, has said something similar in his briefing note to participants:
“We propose to once more focus on the health issues related to a brachycephalic constitution as the highest profile and worst with relation to exaggerations and extremes. In an introductory talk in plenum I will admit that we – despite the magnitude of attention, the raising of awareness across several stakeholder groups, and many actions taken – have failed, so far, to make significant changes in the health status of these breeds. Perhaps many initiatives have not been designed to fully evaluate impacts. There has certainly been a failure to impact the public perception of, and desire for brachycephalics.”
From a change management perspective, it boils down to one thing: if there is no change in (human) behaviour, there will be no improvement in (canine) health.
When I worked with the late Philippa Robinson, as part of our Dog-ED initiative we put together a model describing the elements needed to link health improvement activities with measurable benefits:
As Åke pointed out, we’ve seen lots of projects and new processes that have created outputs such as reports, websites, guidance, educational resources and even new legislation. There has been collaboration to generate support but, in my view, there just haven’t been enough new behaviours to result in rapid enough improvements in dog health. Given the wide range of people interested in dog health, there are lots of people among whom we might need to see new behaviours. Primarily, though, it falls to buyers, breeders and owners to start doing things differently.
Lots of the outputs generated have been focused on changing people’s minds in the belief that they will then change their behaviour. Provide more information, educate them, help them see the error of their ways, stigmatise them; how many of these have caused people to change their behaviour at all, or fast enough, to make a difference for dogs?
One-size-fits-all solutions rarely work
My very first “Best of Health” article described canine health improvement as what is known in business as a “Wicked Problem”. It’s complex and needs to be viewed as a system. Simple, one-size fits all solutions (e.g. change the Breed Standards; introduce more regulation), rarely work and often have unintended consequences. The scale of the challenge can seem daunting but it has parallels in the world of human health where issues such as obesity and crime are being addressed using a systems approach (sometimes!). There is lots of practical work being done, based on good research, in the field of behavioural change.
One of my favourite models for human behaviour change is Dr Susan Michie’s Behavioural Change Wheel. She created the COM-B model from a 2011 study of peer-reviewed papers on behaviour change. She concluded: “Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a Behaviour Change Wheel comprising: a ‘behaviour system’ at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories.”
In the COM-B model, Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact to generate behaviour. Capability and Opportunity address the question of whether a person can or can’t adopt a particular behaviour while Motivation addresses will they or won’t they adopt it. Both capability and opportunity can influence motivation; for example (but VERY simplistically), if a breeder understands the importance of a particular health screening programme and it is available nearby, they may be more motivated to participate in it.
Coercion vs. incentives
COM-B provides a way to design interventions aimed at changing behaviour. Michie’s work has created a taxonomy of 93 behaviour change techniques, drawn (primarily) from work in public health. The model also differentiates between “interventions” (activities aimed at changing behaviour) and “policies” (actions taken by authorities to enable interventions). So, for example, introducing new canine legislation is a policy approach with the intervention typically being focused on coercion or restriction. This approach to restrict breeding relies on the behavioural change technique of “future punishment” (if you don’t comply, you will be punished). Interestingly, a 2019 paper by Michie reported that coercion and restriction were the least cost-effective interventions in a public health setting, while use of incentives was more cost-effective.
Michie also points out that interventions operate within a social context and should be evaluated against 6 criteria (abbreviated to APEASE):
|Criterion||Description||Example questions to answer|
|Affordability||An intervention is affordable if it can be delivered within an acceptable budget to all those who should benefit.||What is the budget to implement the proposed intervention and ensure it is working as intended?|
|Practicability||An intervention is practicable if it can be delivered and implemented as designed.||Who will implement the proposal?|
|Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness||Effectiveness refers to the effect size of the intervention in relation to its objectives. Cost-effectiveness is the ratio of an intervention’s effect to its cost.||Does the evidence support the recommendations for the intervention?|
|Acceptability||Acceptability refers to the extent to which an intervention is judged to be appropriate by relevant stakeholders (and this may differ for different stakeholders).||What are the views of vets, KC, breeders, owners and have they all been considered?|
|Side-effects||An intervention may have unwanted side-effects or unintended consequences.||What might be the unintended consequences or displacement actions?|
|Equity||An intervention may reduce or increase the disparities between different potential beneficiaries.||What will be the effect on other breeds or other owners?|
The Quality Guru Joseph Juran said: “If you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got”. Is it time we took a more behavioural and systems-oriented approach to look at why canine health improvement is not happening or not happening fast enough?
It might sound like a daft question to ask where Breed Health Strategies come from but I think it is of fundamental importance for those of us in breed club leadership roles. It’s also not something that just Breed Health Coordinators should be concerned about.
Here in the UK, the Kennel Club has been supporting breeds to develop Breed Health and Conservation Plans (BHCPs). In the Nordic Countries, these breed strategy documents are abbreviated as RAS and JTO. Whatever they are called, they summarise the current state of a particular breed, drawing on a wide range of evidence ranging from registration statistics and breed health survey results to peer-reviewed research reports and insurance claims data. They also summarise agreed action plans to address the identified priorities.
You might conclude that it is Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs that are driving the need for, and development of, breed improvement strategies. I think we should step back and recognise that there are actually 2 potential driving forces behind this. Firstly, it might be driven by our own clear vision of the value of doing it or, alternatively, there might be pressure on us to do this. It boils down to are you doing it because you want to or because you are told to; i.e. is it a proactive or reactive approach.
Driven by stakeholders?
I hate having to use the term Stakeholders, but it does describe the range of individuals and groups who have an interest in improving the health of pedigree dogs. They include governments, kennel clubs, breed clubs, vets, researchers, breeders, owners, buyers and campaigners (and probably more!).
Kennel Clubs and breed clubs have 2 main choices: either they take the lead and develop evidence-based strategies for health improvement or they will have something forced upon them. If they take the lead, they can shape the direction each breed takes, based on the best available research evidence. If they don’t, they will be at the mercy of others who may be promoting simple solutions to what are actually complex problems. The danger is that, if KC and breed club leadership isn’t proactive enough, we will end up responding to badly-framed legislation (maybe including bans on particular breeds) and a constant barrage of anti-pedigree publicity (like we see in the press every Crufts).
Kennel Clubs in the Nordic countries have been at the forefront of developing breed-specific health strategies and that has undoubtedly enabled them to set the agenda for promoting pedigree dogs. However, even they have not been immune from pressure brought to bear by the veterinary profession which has expressed grave concerns about some of the Brachycephalic breeds. Here, in the UK, the formation of the Brachycephalic Working Group is a great example of our KC and breed club representatives engaging positively with others who are campaigning to improve the health of dogs in these breeds.
I have no doubt that, however proactive we might be, the pace of change will never be fast enough for some people. The late Philippa Robinson, who campaigned for breed health improvement on so many fronts, often used the phrase “trendlines, not headlines”. By this, she meant we should be looking for the evidence of underlying trends that demonstrate improvement and not simply cherry-picking attention-grabbing headlines. She also meant that those of us trying to drive improvement shouldn’t allow ourselves to be overly distracted by headlines. Someone will always be looking to grab the headlines and, with a world of social media, the tendency to try to distill a complex story down to a tweet of 140 characters is not going away any time soon.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” – HL Mencken.
The influence of the show ring
Judges and exhibitors have a role to play, too. Most Breed Standards have been modified to ensure exaggeration is discouraged. Further work still needs to be done, in some cases, but I doubt that changing a few Breed Standards will have much impact on dog health. Too many of the puppies in popular breeds such as Bulldogs, Pugs and French Bulldogs are bred by people who wouldn’t know what a Breed Standard was, even if it smacked them in the face.
The KC asks Championship Show judges to submit reports on any visible concerns for Breed Watch Category 2 and 3 breeds (and this is an option open to judges of Category 1 breeds with no visible points of concern). Our KC has regularly argued that the show ring can have a strong (positive) influence on the health of pedigree dogs. That is true but it is easily undermined if judges reward and promote dogs that have either visible faults or obvious exaggerations.
Breed clubs have to take the lead
Kennel Clubs have limited resources and have to prioritise where they invest their time and money. Here, BHCPs were prioritised for the Breed Watch Category 3 (formerly “High Profile”) breeds. At last year’s Breed Health Coordinator Symposium, Bill Lambert told us that there was a “model” BHCP which any breed could use as a template. Effectively, he said breed clubs don’t have to wait for the KC to begin the work of developing a strategy for any particular breed. He fired the starting pistol and gave permission, if anyone needed it, for all of us to take the initiative.
Clearly, an individual breed club community isn’t going to have the time or expertise that Dr Katy Evans brought to the initial batch of BHCPs. But, we all have people who are passionate about their breed and there is a wealth of readily accessible evidence. Somehow, we have to create the capacity and capability at breed level. There are plenty of simple first steps that many breeds are already taking to demonstrate their commitment to improving the health of their dogs. It’s a shame we no longer have Philippa Robinson’s KarltonIndex Awards to recognise, celebrate and reinforce all this good work.
I also feel strongly that breed clubs should be putting their BHCP out in the public domain. The content is mostly information that is already in the public domain. Publishing a single reference point of available evidence clearly demonstrates the culture of openness and honesty about breed health that we should all be encouraging. What have we got to hide?
If we don’t take the lead to create and publish evidence-based breed health strategies because we want to do this, we will have them “done to us”. We almost certainly won’t like these and they will quite likely include requirements that actually have unintended consequences that may make things worse for the dogs.
I’ll be leading the Breed Health Strategies workshop stream at next month’s International Dog Health Workshop here in the UK; co-hosted by the Kennel Club and IPFD. I’ll be reporting on behalf of Our Dogs so look out for daily tweets (@sunsongian) and a full report in the paper.
An Open Access paper has just been published which discusses dog theft trends in the UK. Statistics from Direct Line Insurance also show the most frequently stolen breeds and the regional hotspots for theft.
Dogs are considered property under UK law, while current discourses of pet ownership place canine companions as part of an extended family. This means sentences for those who steal dogs are not reflective of a dogs’ sentience and agency, rather reflecting the same charges for those who steal a laptop or wallet. This is particularly problematic as dog theft is currently on the rise in England and Wales and led to public calls to change the law.
The paper shows the statistics of reported dog thefts from 2015 to 2017 and highlights the reduction in the proportion of cases where someone was charged by the Police.
According to the paper, there were police force inconsistencies in recording dog theft crime which meant some data was unusable or could not be accessed or analysed. The researchers say there is a need for a qualitative study to understand dog theft crime in different areas, and a standardised approach to recording the theft of a dog by all forces across England and Wales.
Allen, D.; Peacock, A.; Arathoon, J. Spatialities of Dog Theft: A Critical Perspective. Preprints2019, 2019030255 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201903.0255.v1).
It’s always interesting to read the discussion threads on social media when new scientific papers on canine health and welfare matters are reported and when breed clubs publish their health survey results. I’ve written before about Cognitive Dissonance, a term that captures a multitude of reasons why it’s so hard to get people to see the need for improvement, let alone act to create change. In essence, it means people feel uncomfortable when newly presented evidence clashes with their existing beliefs and they try to find ways to reduce their discomfort.
Albert Einstein is quoted as having said “If we knew what it was we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?” It should be no surprise that, with some research, the results are completely novel or, in some cases, unexpected. Newly published research should prompt us to ask the question “why?” – why might a particular association have been identified and why might the results have turned out like they did. Instead, we often find what appears to be cognitive dissonance kicking in. Here are some examples:
The sample is too small: Some research starts with very small samples, often for practical reasons such as cost or convenience. Any interesting findings need to be explored with further studies using bigger and more representative samples, not simply dismissed. Since we know how many dogs are registered in every pedigree breed each year, it is easy enough to estimate the UK population if we also know their average age of death. There are well-established statistical methods for judging the confidence that can be applied to samples so it doesn’t take much effort to decide whether a sample is really “too small”. The opposite effect also happens sometimes; the results of a small study may be misused to provide “evidence” for whole populations.
It’s misleading/skewed: This is a variant of “the sample is too small” but focusing on it being the wrong sample. All samples have some degree of bias; the important thing is to understand what that might be and most peer-reviewed papers have a section discussing potential limitations of the study. That’s where you can get an understanding of potential shortcomings in the chosen data and the potential to address these with future studies. A common criticism of breed health surveys is that the responses are skewed by people who have ill dogs or that “show people” won’t be honest. That’s why it’s important to look for other studies that perhaps cover different respondent samples to see what results were obtained there. Our first major Dachshund health survey was criticised by some for being biased with responses from 85% show breeders. When we repeated the survey 3 years later and had responses from 85% non-show owners, the findings were very similar.
It’s not scientific: This is a great one that gets trotted out to criticise breed health surveys, in particular. I don’t even know what it means. Is it because the report wasn’t written by someone with a PhD or administered by someone wearing a white lab coat? The expertise of most Breed Health Coordinators is backed-up by advice from the KC’s health team so there is invariably a strong scientific input into the design and analysis of breed surveys these days. The follow-on criticism of breed survey reports is sometimes that “it’s not peer-reviewed”. That’s probably true but most aren’t intended for publication in academic journals. The lack of peer review doesn’t negate their usefulness. Most are reporting basic descriptive statistics such as Means or Medians, and maybe Odds Ratios, often with Confidence Intervals and p-values.
We can’t do anything about it: Findings are written off because, in some people’s view, no action can be taken. For example, we found that incidence of back disease in Dachshunds is higher in Winter months than during the other 3 seasons. It prompts the question why. We could hypothesise that it’s due to them getting less exercise or some temperature effect. Whatever the reason (which more investigation might explore), it’s pretty unlikely that nothing can be done. “We can’t do anything about it” is often just a lazy response to avoid finding something that can be done. In fact, it’s just as lazy as responding with “what can we do to improve it?” unsupported by any suggestions.
We need more research: I’ve written before about the parallels between the tobacco industry’s response to the link between smoking and cancer and the dog world’s response to criticisms of health issues in pedigree dogs. A call for more research is sometimes just a smokescreen, looking for the perfect set of data which, of course, will never be found.
We need facts: This one is used alongside “it’s not scientific” and it’s hard to know what to make of such a comment when the report being referred to is full of data and analyses. The BBC says “a fact is something that can be checked and backed up with evidence” and “facts are often used in conjunction with research and study”. “Opinions are based on a belief or view”. Last year, it was reported that chocolate labradors live significantly shorter lives than the other colours. Although perhaps surprising, this “fact” can be checked by looking at the data and evidence presented in the paper. Additionally, it’s not the first example of a dog’s colour being associated with a particular aspect of its health so maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising.
My dogs don’t have that: We need to remember that data presented in papers and reports are from samples of populations. These will contain a range of cases and non-cases. Just because one breeder has never had a particular problem doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. “The plural of anecdote is not data“! Gregoire Leroy has written an excellent blog at dogwellnet.com about this, which he calls the “sampling effect”.
A nudge towards breed health improvement
My Christmas reading was Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed. It’s all about how people and organisations learn (or don’t). One paragraph really struck a chord with me:
“Science is not just about a method, it is also about a mindset. At its best it is driven forward by a restless spirit, an intellectual courage, a willingness to face up to failures and to be honest about key data, even when it undermines cherished beliefs.“
We do need to question the research that is published on canine health matters, not to knock it down but to understand how it can be used to help us. Every piece of research and every breed survey has the potential to nudge us towards actions that will improve the lives of our dogs.
Doctors Tom Lewis (KC) and Cathryn Mellersh (AHT) recently published an Open Access paper where they analysed trends in DNA testing for 8 autosomally recessive conditions in 8 breeds. A headline in the Vet Times said “Study reveals ‘fantastic work’ of DNA testing”. The sub-headline stated that “A study has revealed responsible breeders are reducing the number of pedigree dogs at risk of often painful and debilitating inherited diseases by around 90%”.
This paper is exactly the sort of great work we have come to expect from the KC’s Health Team and their partners at the Animal Health Trust. I believe it could be one of the most influential papers that might be published this year because of its potential to influence breed health policy and strategy, as well as the behaviour of breeders and buyers.
I don’t want to dwell on the detail of the research; you can read that for yourself, here: https://goo.gl/PiQmMF – I want to discuss how and why this paper might be important. The study covers the results of 8 DNA tests in 8 breeds for the period 2000 to 2017. 2 of the DNA tests applied to 2 breeds, resulting in 10 test+breed combinations. The key metric used to measure progress was the Mutation Frequency which is more useful than simply counting the number or calculating the proportions of Clear, Carrier and Affected dogs. It is calculated as [(2 x No. of Affected) + No. of Carriers]/(2 x No. of dogs with a known result).
Measures of progress
Previously, many reports on the progress of DNA testing have simply shown the proportion of Clear, Carrier and Affected dogs tested each year and that’s what we used to report in our Dachshund Annual Health Report. However, as tests become more established, the KC is able to deduce the status of untested dogs and assign their hereditary status. For many tests we are now able to identify Hereditary Clear, Hereditary Carrier and Hereditary Affected dogs based on test results from their parents. That still leaves a proportion of dogs in the KC database without known or deduced status and the researchers acknowledged this in their analysis but were able to calculate a “worst case” view of mutation frequency in each breed. Those of us reporting on DNA testing in our breed should be asking the KC Health Team for Hereditary results so we can give a more accurate picture of the impact being made. The difference can be quite significant, for example 50% of the test results for PRA-rcd4 in Gordon Setters were “Clear” in 2017 but, when hereditary status is taken into account, 95% of the breed was “Clear”. When you’re telling the story of what’s been achieved, that’s a big difference.
Another aspect of the paper is the data on trends in uptake and usage of DNA tests. For most breeds, unsurprisingly, the peak uptake of DNA tests was around the time it became commercially available and subsequently tailing off. The one exception to this was Exercise Induced Collapse in Labradors where use of the test has grown steadily since its launch. The peak around launch may reflect the fact that breed club communities are often actively involved in developing a test and are therefore keen to make use of it as soon as it becomes available. The challenge for all of us in breed clubs is how to educate and influence those outside our community to make use of these tests.
The paper also shows that there is an inverse relationship between the size of a breed and the take-up rate of tests. The slowest rate of increase occurred in the 2 numerically largest breeds, Labradors and Cockers. In smaller breeds, it’s more likely that breed clubs have influence over a higher proportion of breeders. The Labrador/Cocker effect may also be related to the split of working, show and pet breeders, making it more difficult to reach a more diverse group of owners. It may also be the case that, in breeds where multiple DNA tests exist, like Labradors (5 tests according to the KC) and Cockers (4 tests), it is more difficult to persuade breeders to make use of what might be seen as “yet another test”.
Another consideration related to uptake of a test is breeders’ perception of the need to use it. The severity of the condition, its age of onset and how widespread affected dogs are in the population are all factors that individual breeders will consider when prioritising whether or not to use a test. In some cases, breeders simply don’t want to know despite the seriousness of a condition and prefer to bury their heads in the sand. All of this gets me back on my change management hobby-horse; it’s important to communicate much more than just the launch or availability of a new test.
In some cases, the launch of a new test could actually make things worse in a breed. The paper notes the evidence of selection – breeders intentionally avoiding producing affected puppies. In some breeds we have seen unhelpful selection strategies such as Affecteds or Carriers being removed from the breeding population completely, when they could quite safely be mated to Clear dogs. Another unhelpful approach is when people rush to use the small number of Clear stud dogs available and we may end up with the so-called Popular Sire Syndrome and all the adverse consequences that go with that. So, while DNA tests do indeed have the potential to prevent the breeding of more affected puppies, breeders must consider the bigger picture of genetic diversity. Reducing the gene pool makes it even more likely that hitherto unseen recessive mutations will “pop up” as undesirable health problems.
There are over 700 inherited disorders and traits in dogs, of which around 300 have a genetically simple mode of inheritance and around 150 available DNA tests. This tells us that we should not rely on DNA testing to solve the “problem” of diseases in pedigree dogs.
This new paper therefore gives the KC and breed clubs an opportunity to educate (or re-educate) owners and breeders on how DNA tests can be used within an overall breed health strategy. As well as celebrating the fantastic work done by so many committed breed enthusiasts, the messaging needs to be wider than “DNA testing improves dog health”.
I also wonder to what extent this paper might cause the KC to review its policies on the registration system, particularly given that there have long been calls for responsible breeders to be recognised for their commitment. It’s no good saying that’s what the ABS is for when so many good breeders have chosen not to join. Last year, Our Dogs wrote “A Manifesto for Change”, directed at the KC Board. Among other things, it said there was a need to address (or justify clearly) long-standing issues related to the registration system such as the ABS, DNA identification and the requirements for health testing. I hope the Lewis & Mellersh paper provides part of the evidence-base for those discussions.
This year, the International Partnership for Dogs will be holding its 4th workshop. Our Kennel Club is hosting the event which will take place from 30th May to 1st June, near Windsor. The Kennel Club was a founding partner of the IPFD since its inception in 2014 and hosted the first ever meeting of the IPFD Board that same year. Kennel Club Secretary, Caroline Kisko, is the Vice Chairman of the IPFD and our KC also provides the secretariat for board meetings.
A major goal of the International Dog Health Workshops (IDHW) is to promote collaboration and networking. This begins with the reception on the Thursday evening and continues throughout the next 2 days. All attendees are expected to share expertise/experiences and to participate actively in discussions in breakout sessions.
I attended the 3rd IDHW in Paris in 2017 and was privileged to be invited to make a short presentation on our work in the Dachshund Breed Council to develop and implement a breed health strategy. I also took part in the breed-specific health strategies workshop and this year I have been asked to help with the design and facilitation of that part of the programme.
As with previous IDHWs, the majority of time is spent in interaction: limited plenary talks have been chosen to highlight Themes; most time is spent in smaller group breakout sessions.
There are 5 main themes being tackled this year:
1) The concept of ‘Breed’ and how it influences health and welfare in dogs. How attitudes to the definition and understanding of breed affect actions for health; the history and future of outcrossing; public perception; conservation vs. development of breeds; the role/ influences of breed standards; judging for health/function not just appearance; experience in other species.
2) Supply and Demand. The reality of sourcing – national vs. registered/pedigree populations; commercial breeding: the reality; new developments in health and welfare management; ‘rescues’ / marketing; the role of different stakeholders.
3) Breed-Specific Health Strategies: By breed, nationally and internationally. Defining and sharing tools to support the work of breed clubs.
4) Genetic Testing for Dogs: Selection, evaluation and application of genetic testing: building expert resources for genetic counselling / IPFD Harmonization of Genetic Testing for Dogs (HGTD) initiative; coordinating across stakeholder groups; latest developments in genetics and genomics.
5) Exaggerations and Extremes in Dog Conformation:
a) Health, welfare and breeding considerations; review of national and international efforts, on all fronts (consumers, show world, breeders, judges, vets, etc) since 2012 – what has been achieved?; brachycephalics; other existing and emerging issues; overcoming polarization and conflict, resolving science and emotion.
b) Education and Communication – Past practices may not have achieved desired outcomes. What are tools and techniques to promote human behaviour change? What can we learn from other fields?
“In God we trust, everyone else must bring data” – Dr. Edwards Deming
In 2017, one of the themes was “Show me the numbers” and some people might wonder why this has been dropped for 2019. It was obvious from the discussions within that theme in 2017 that it was actually cross-cutting, meaning it was a key aspect running through all the other themes. So, we can take it as read that improvement in any of the themes on the 2019 agenda will have to be underpinned by the availability of good data and evidence.
The format of this year’s workshop is slightly different from 2017; there are 4 interactive plenary sessions taking up a large part of the agenda on 31st May. These include short presentations by renowned experts from around the world. Nick Blaney, who heads up our KC’s Dog Health Group is among the speakers.
All change please!
I’ll be particularly interested to hear the presentation by Suzanne Rogers who is a Director of a consultancy: Human Behaviour Change for Animals (HBCA). I’m pleased to see she will be speaking about communication to promote change. When I spoke in 2017, I started by saying that dog health improvement was not a scientific, veterinary or genetic problem. My view was (and still is) that dog health improvement is a continuous improvement and change management problem. It is something we have to work on continuously and we can expect to see incremental improvement (rather than step-change) only if people behave differently. By “people”, I mean owners, breeders, exhibitors, judges, vets and everyone who directly impacts on the dog system. That is why it’s a change management issue. It’s also no good each of those groups acting independently in their own silos without thinking about how they could be collaborating with others in the system. The Brachycephalic Working Group is one example where a multi-stakeholder approach has been taken in order to produce a plan that has a broad consensus of support. We’ve seen too many campaigns by individuals and groups that simply alienate the people who have the potential to make improvements happen. That is still happening and it feels like lessons aren’t being learnt. I therefore hope Suzanne will be able to bring some new thinking to this year’s workshop. The HBCA website lists 4 pillars for change: the process of change; the psychology of change; the environment for change; and ownership of change. The importance of these has, in my opinion, not been sufficiently well recognised, understood or addressed in many breed health improvement efforts.
Breed-specific health strategies
At the 3rd IDHW, participants in this theme agreed that effective and sustainable implementation of health strategies requires innovative solutions to many different challenges. Provision of sufficient reliable information was agreed as critical, for both situational assessment as well as health screening and DNA testing of dogs. Considering the design of breed health strategies, the group agreed that it was important to identify and balance the major issues for each individual breed and give guidelines on how priorities could be determined for each, while still allowing breeders discretion to make their own decisions within an overall framework of requirements and recommendations.
The general conclusion was that there is no “one size fits all” solution for developing breed-specific health strategies and that the most effective interventions would need to be adapted according to the specific context of each breed, nationally and internationally.
This year, the activities for this theme will include:
- Clarifying what we mean by a breed health strategy, by reference to currently available examples
- Understanding the challenges facing breed clubs, such as how to get started with a breed strategy, how to maintain momentum and how to accelerate progress
- The role of Kennel Clubs in the wider context (national and international), such as advocating for breeds, influencing legislation and providing resources for clubs and breeders
- Identifying and sharing currently available resources and tools to address these issues
- Identifying gaps in current capabilities (approaches, resources, tools) and how these might be addressed
It’s a lot of ground to cover in the 3 working sessions but, if 2017 is anything to go by, participants will bring a high level of knowledge and energy and leave with a clear sense of the priorities and tasks to be undertaken over the next 2 years.
You can find out more about IDHW4 here: https://doghealthworkshop2019.co.uk/