Predictors and barriers for biosecurity uptake and risk understanding among Ontario horse owners

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to describe implementation of biosecurity practices by Ontario horse owners and investigate whether biosecurity implementation was associated with horse-owner demographic characteristics and personality traits.

Procedure

A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of horse owners in Ontario to collect data on demographics, personality traits, risk comprehension, and biosecurity practices. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of participants with shared personality traits, and univariable associations between clusters and demographic and biosecurity variables were examined.

Results

A total of 271 participants were included in the analysis. Participants were primarily female (86%), from 25 to 44 y old (57%), and engaged in leisure riding (64%). Facility-level biosecurity plans were reported to be in place by 59% of participants, with 47% indicating that vaccinations were required within those plans. Other biosecurity practices were reported to be used less often by participants; for example, boot washing (31%) and disinfecting hands (27%). Two clusters of participants were identified according to similarities in personality traits: Cluster 1, which was characterized by high extraversion scores; and Cluster 2, which was characterized by high neuroticism scores. Cluster 1 participants were more involved in competitions, sought information from other horse owners, and received disease outbreak news from veterinarians. Cluster 2 participants exhibited higher variability in biosecurity practices implemented.

Conclusion

Biosecurity is variably implemented on Ontario equine facilities, which warrants the need for ongoing efforts to increase uptake at high-risk facilities. Recommendations include fostering collaboration, providing tailored support and resources, and improving communication channels.

Clinical relevance

Demographic, personality, and other lifestyle traits influence horse owners’ biosecurity behaviors. Equine veterinarians may benefit from considering these factors to ensure effective communication and implementation of biosecurity plans at equine facilities.

INTRODUCTION

Protecting the equine industry from disease is crucial for the health and welfare of horses and the economic viability of the industry. Equine disease outbreaks can have profound effects on horse health and welfare, leading to morbidity, reduced athletic performance, or death (1). This not only affects the health of individual horses, but also can negatively affect population-level health, interrupt equine-related activities and equestrian events, and disrupt horse sales, resulting in societal and economic consequences (1).

Equine “biosecurity” refers to a set of measures used to reduce the introduction and spread of pathogens (2). By implementing measures such as isolation, quarantine, vaccination, hygiene practices, and regular health monitoring, biosecurity has a crucial role in reducing the risk of pathogen acquisition and minimizing outbreaks among equine populations (1). Despite the importance of biosecurity, there are few to no federal, provincial, or other regulatory requirements for horse owners to implement biosecurity measures at equine facilities in Canada (1). Core vaccines, including rabies, tetanus, West Nile virus (WNV), eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), and western equine encephalitis (WEE), are optional but recommended for all horses in Ontario (3). Risk-based vaccines, including equine influenza (EI), Streptococcus equi (strangles), and equine herpesvirus 1 and 4 (EHV 1 and 4), are recommended for horses considered at high risk of pathogen acquisition and high risk of severe outcomes, such as foals, pregnant mares, and those boarded at high-traffic facilities (3). An influential factor in successful implementation and effectiveness of biosecurity practices is the knowledge and proactive behaviors of horse owners. However, recent disease outbreaks in Ontario, such as those caused by strangles and EHV, emphasize gaps in biosecurity implementation (4). These outbreaks raise concerns about the potential for widespread disease incidents that could affect not only the horse-owning population within Ontario, but also the wider national industry.

Various health-behavior theories, such as the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior, outline how factors such as perceived responsibility, barriers, benefits, and perceived behavioral control influence an individual’s intentions and actions, all of which are influenced by demographic and psychological characteristics (5). Despite limited research examining the relationship between personality and uptake of biosecurity among horse owners, findings from other agricultural industries suggest that this warrants further investigation (6–8). Therefore, this study aimed to i) describe demographic characteristics and biosecurity implementation among a sample of equine facilities, and ii) explore potential associations between demographic and personality variables and biosecurity uptake among Ontario horse owners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Recruitment

This study used a cross-sectional questionnaire to gather data on horse owner and facility characteristics. From January to March 2023, participants were recruited to complete the questionnaire using a combination of social media and in-person methods. Participants were eligible to participate in the questionnaire if they were > 18 y of age, resided in Ontario, and either owned or leased a horse. Recruitment posters were posted to equestrian-related Facebook pages encompassing various horse disciplines. Recruitment also occurred at a local in-person event for equestrian practitioners, where interested practitioners were asked to distribute posters to their clientele. This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Guelph Research Ethics Board (REB # 22-03-034).

Questionnaire design and data collection

Individuals who met the eligibility criteria and provided informed consent to participate were directed to complete the questionnaire, which was created and distributed using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah, USA). The questionnaire included 4 sections with questions related to participant and facility demographics, personality assessment, risk comprehension, and biosecurity implementation. A copy of the questionnaire is available in Appendix 1 (available online from: Supplementary Materials).

To assess personality, the short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI), consisting of 11 questions, was used (9). The BFI is a standardized self-reporting personality test that measures individuals on 5 broad personality dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness (10). Participants rank themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree”) for each item, which then places them on a scale within each dimension. The short version of the BFI was developed for researchers limited by time, and thus was chosen over the original, 44-item version, to minimize study completion time and maintain participant focus (9). The BFI-10 captures 70% of the original BFI variance and 85% of retest reliability (9). The only significant correlation loss was indicated in the agreeableness scale; therefore, another item (“Is considerate and kind to almost everyone”) was added to the 2 other corresponding items in the short version (9). The other 4 personality dimensions each consisted of 2 items.

To assess understanding of risk, participants were first asked about their familiarity with certain equine diseases, as well as the perceived severity of diseases in relation to their horse’s current health. Participants were then presented with 3 scenarios and were asked to rate their horse’s risk of infection in each scenario while considering their horse’s current health status. The scenarios included i) a 4-day competition event where their horse would be present, ii) a situation in which their horse was grazing in a field at home that had frequent wildlife visitors, and iii) a scenario in which their horse was boarded in a barn with horses that frequently participated in competitions. These scenarios were designed to understand how horse owners assess their horses’ risk of contracting specific diseases in real-life scenarios.

Finally, participants were asked about the presence or absence of certain biosecurity measures at their facilities. They were also asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with individual statements related to barriers and motivators for implementing biosecurity practices, which were informed through a previous qualitative study of Ontario horse owners (11).

Descriptive and statistical analyses

All responses were exported from Qualtrics to a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) spreadsheet file before being exported to R statistical software (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; 2023) for analysis. Descriptive statistics of the variables were examined, and frequency distributions were determined for all categorical variables.

Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was used to determine if participants could be clustered based on similarities in their responses to the 11 personality items. Each personality dimension corresponded to 2 personality items (3 for agreeableness). To score the BFI, some items first had to be reverse-scored, and then the corresponding items within each personality dimension were averaged to achieve mean values (9). Mean values for each BFI dimension were then used as the input values for HCA. Hierarchial cluster analysis was done using the “cluster” package in R, which identifies clusters based on the calculation of a dissimilarity matrix using Euclidian distances and the application of Ward’s agglomeration method (12). The corresponding dendrogram, as well as the silhouette and elbow method, were used to determine the optimal number of clusters (13). To identify which personality dimensions were significantly different between clusters, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. To investigate univariable associations between cluster membership and demographic, risk, and biosecurity categorial variables, the X² test or Fisher exact test was used. Statistical significance was set at = 0.05. For non-dichotomous categorical variables, post-hoc analyses using residuals were done with a Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Questionnaire responses

The questionnaire received 425 responses. A total of 130 responses were removed because respondents either did not fully comple the questionnaire or did not meet eligibility criteria. In addition, 18 participants were removed for not meeting the inclusion criteria of owning or leasing a horse, 4 participants were removed for having a low ReCAPTCHA score (in which a score < 0.5 indicates a higher likelihood of fraudulent or bot behavior), and 2 participants were removed for having inconsistent responses (skipping through questions but still finishing the survey). A final total of 271 responses were included in the analysis.

Participant and facility demographics

Most participants identified as female (86.0%, 233/271), owned > 1 horse (57.0%, 155/271) and had > 10 y of experience with horses (76.4%, 207/271) (Table 1). Furthermore, 51% (138/271) of participants reported currently competing at competitions, with 24.0% (65/271) competing at unsanctioned events.

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics collected from a cross-sectional questionnaire of horse owners in Ontario (n = 271).

Variable	Level	Number (%)
Age (y)	18 to 24	45 (16.6)
	25 to 34	87 (32.1)
	35 to 44	68 (25.1)
	45 to 54	37 (13.7)
	55 to 64	29 (10.7)
	65 +	5 (1.8)
Ownership status	Own	257 (94.8)
	Lease	43 (16.0)
	Both own and lease	29 (10.7)
Main equestrian activitya	Breeding	39 (14.4)
	Companion, no riding	46 (17.0)
	Dressage	63 (23.2)
	Eventing	36 (13.3)
	Hacking	173 (63.8)
	Lessons	103 (38)
	Racing	19 (7.0)
	Retired	41 (15.1)
	Show jumping	85 (31.4)
	Otherb	51 (18.8)

^aParticipants could choose > 1 option.

^b“Other” activities included western performance, clicker training, driving, etc.

Most participants reported being aware of their horse’s vaccination status (85.6%, 232/271). Among those who knew their horse’s vaccination status, the most frequently administered were core vaccinations, such as rabies (94.5%, 240/254), followed by tetanus (89.5%, 229/256), EEE/WEE (86.3%, 220/255), and WNV (78.5%, 201/256). Among risk-based vaccinations, EI was frequently administered (75.9%, 195/257), followed by EHV (70.8%, 182/257), with S. equi (strangles) being the least commonly administered (37.1%, 95/257).

When participants were asked about factors that influenced where they chose to board their horse, the most common factors included location of the facility (42.4%, 115/271), cost of boarding (36.5%, 99/271), and type of social environment at the facility (22.1%, 60/271) (Table 2). Furthermore, 67.9% (165/243) of participants reported purposely changing boarding facilities either recently or in the past for reasons such as “poor quality of care” and “disagreements with management.”

TABLE 2.

Facility characteristics collected from a cross-sectional questionnaire of horse owners in Ontario (n = 271).

Variable	Level	Number (%)
Facility typea	Boarding facility	156 (57.6)
	Breeding farm	33 (12.2)
	Co-op facility	11 (4.06)
	Competition stables	44 (16.2)
	Livestock farm	39 (14.4)
	Lesson barn	63 (23.2)
	Owned private property	107 (39.5)
	Otherb	20 (7.4)
Management of facility	Sole owner/manager	114 (42.1)
	Has owner of facility	84 (31.0)
	Has manager of facility	25 (9.2)
	Has both owner and manager	35 (12.9)
Horse maintenance	Barn employees (full-time)	107 (39.5)
	Barn employees (part-time) and you (part-time)	71 (26.2)
	You personally (full-time)	92 (33.9)
	Friend/family member (full-time)	20 (7.4)
	Friend/family member (part-time) and you (part-time)	35 (12.9)
	Other	28 (10.3)

^aParticipants could choose > 1 option.

^b“Other” facilities included racetrack, rented property, therapy facility, etc.

Risk perceptions and knowledge of diseases

When asked about familiarly with certain diseases, more participants either had experience with strangles (15.9%, 43/271) or knew someone that had experienced strangles (31.4%, 85/271) compared to other equine diseases. Participants were least familiar with equine protozoal myeloencephalitis (EPM) (13.3%, 36/271) and equine herpesvirus myeloencephalopathy (8.9%, 24/270). In terms of perceived severity of certain diseases, participants more frequently thought their horses would behave normally (have no clinical signs) with diseases such as Lyme disease (10.0%, 27/270), EHV (9.7%, 26/269), and EPM (9.3%, 25/268). In contrast, some participants thought signs would be extremely severe for their horse if they contracted diseases such as leptospirosis (42.1%, 112/266), EEE (32.3%, 87/269), WEE (32.5%, 87/268), or EPM (31%, 83/268).

When presented with the scenario about participating at a 4-day competition, participants indicated that their horse was not at risk for vector-borne diseases including Lyme disease (63.3%, 171/270), WNV (47.8%, 129/270), and EPM (43.9%, 119/271). Some participants indicated that their horse was at extremely high risk for communicable diseases such as strangles (11.4%, 31/271), EHV (11.1%, 30/270) and EI (10.7%, 29/270). When presented with the scenario in which their horses were grazing in a field frequented by wildlife, participants reported that their horse would be at extremely high risk of diseases such as EPM (17.4%, 47/270), WNV (16.4%, 44/268), and rabies (12.9%, 35/271). Finally, when presented with the scenario of boarding at a facility where other horses frequently competed, few participants (< 5%) felt that their horse was at extremely high risk of disease. Participants indicated that this scenario was only slightly risky for diseases such as EI (48%, 130/271), strangles (45.4%, 123/271), and EHV (44.6%, 121/271).

Biosecurity

Participants used the term “biosecurity” (35.8%, 97/271), or both “infection control” and “biosecurity” (34.7%, 94/271), in reference to disease-prevention practices. Eight percent of participants reported that disease-prevention practices were not discussed at all at their facility (21/271). If participants had questions about disease prevention, most reported they would either ask their veterinarian (91.1%, 247/271) or refer to educational websites (69.4%, 188/271). In contrast, participants primarily heard about equine disease outbreaks via social media (82.7%, 224/271) and word of mouth (72.3%, 196/271).

Among participants, 59.0% (160/271) reported having a biosecurity plan at their facility, 26.2% (71/271) reported not having a plan, and 14.8% (40/271) were unsure about whether a plan was in place. Direct-to-horse practices, such as isolating sick horses (46.9%, 127/271), quarantining incoming horses (36.9%, 100/271), and core vaccinations (47.2%, 128/271), were commonly required at facilities (Figure 1). Measures such as risk-based vaccinations (32.5%, 88/271) and disinfecting hands (19.6%, 53/271) were often recommended at facilities. Participants reported that measures such as boot washing (31.4%, 85/271), not letting horses touch noses (28.4%, 77/271), and disinfecting hands (26.9%, 73/271) were recommended but were not being done. Thirty-two percent (87/271) of participants implemented measures not specifically required by the facility, including core vaccinations (72.4%, 63/87), risk-based vaccinations (57.5%, 50/87), and changing clothes when traveling between barns (57.5%, 50/87). Fifty-five percent (150/270) of participants had a quarantine area at their facility, and 11.7% (120/271) had a quarantine area they used off-site from their facility. If participants had neither an on-site nor an off-site quarantine area, 80.2% (85/106) reported being able to set up a temporary quarantine area in the event of a disease outbreak.

FIGURE 1.

Levels of biosecurity practices observed by Ontario horse owners who participated in a cross-sectional questionnaire (n = 271).

When asked about potential barriers to biosecurity implementation, 12.3% (33/268) of participants strongly agreed they were often discouraged by a lack of facilities. Other participants strongly agreed they were discouraged by a lack of equipment available (5.2%, 14/270) and the concern that they would be labeled as overly cautious if they carried out biosecurity measures (4.8%, 13/269). In terms of motivators for practicing biosecurity, most participants felt they had a moral obligation to protect their horse from potential diseases that other horses may be carrying (81.0%, 218/269), and preferred to take a proactive approach to biosecurity rather than a reactive one (70.0%, 189/270).

Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA)

Two personality clusters were identified through HCA. Cluster 1 included 131 participants who had a higher overall mean (± SD) score on the extraversion scale (3.84 ± 0.70) compared to those in Cluster 2 (2.46 ± 0.75). Cluster 2 included 140 participants who had a higher overall mean score on the neuroticism scale (3.40 ± 1.0) compared to those in Cluster 1 (2.26 ± 0.80). Extraversion is typically associated with being sociable, energetic, and outgoing; whereas neuroticism is typically associated with experiencing higher levels of negative emotions such as anxiety, worry, and emotional instability (10). Overall mean scores for the other 3 personality types (agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness) did not significantly differ between clusters.

There were minor differences in demographic profiles between clusters. Cluster 1 had more individuals who identified as male (21.4%, 28/131) compared to Cluster 2 (5.7%, 8/140; P < 0.001), and more individuals who had < 1 y of experience with horses (5.3%, 7/131) compared to Cluster 2 (0%, 0/140; P = 0.001). Cluster 1 also had more individuals who boarded their horses at co-op facilities (where responsibility for the barn is shared among horse owners who board their horse) (6.9%, 9/131) compared to Cluster 2 (1.4%, 2/140; P = 0.049). More individuals from Cluster 2 reported purposely changing boarding facilities either recently or in the past (67.9%, 95/140) compared to Cluster 1 (53.4%, 70/131; P = 0.014). A greater proportion of participants in Cluster 1 reported that they competed in competitions (59.5%, 78/131) compared to those in Cluster 2 (42.9%, 60/140; P = 0.009), though there were no significant differences in the level of competition. A greater proportion of participants in Cluster 1 received news about disease outbreaks from their veterinarian (73.3%, 96/131) compared to those in Cluster 2 (60%, 84/140; P = 0.028). However, Cluster 1 participants were more likely to consult other horse owners if they had questions about disease prevention (50.4%, 66/131) compared to Cluster 2 participants (36.4%, 51/140; P = 0.028).

In reference to specific biosecurity practices, more participants from Cluster 1 reported that core vaccinations were required at their facility (54.2%, 71/131) compared to Cluster 2 (40.7%, 57/140; P = 0.035). In addition, more participants from Cluster 1 reported that other measures not listed in the questionnaire were required or recommended at their facility (18.3%, 24/131) compared to Cluster 2 (5%, 7/140; P = 0.003). More individuals in Cluster 1 also reported having boot-washing stations (35.1%, 46/131) at their facility compared to those in Cluster 2 (17.1%, 24/140; P < 0.001). Furthermore, more Cluster 1 individuals implemented visitor logs in their facility (25.2%, 33/131) compared to Cluster 2 individuals (8.6%, 12/140; P < 0.001). Last, more Cluster 1 individuals reported using a quarantine area off-site from their facility (8.4%, 11/131) compared to Cluster 2 individuals (2.1%, 3/140; P = 0.013).

DISCUSSION

This study contributed to our understanding of the demographic characteristics, biosecurity implementation, and potential determinants of biosecurity use among a sample of Ontario horse owners. This study also examined participants’ perceptions and understanding of risks associated with equine diseases, as well as the extent of biosecurity practices implemented at their facilities. Furthermore, it explored possible relationships between these variables and personality traits of participants.

In this study, core vaccines were more frequently used than risk-based vaccines. This aligned with current recommendations based on varying risk-taking activities among horse owners. There has been some international research exploring barriers to uptake of certain vaccines within the equine industry, to explain reasons for low usage — for example, with the Hendra virus vaccine in Australia. Some identified barriers for Hendra virus vaccine uptake were cost and the perception of immediate risk for the horse, as well as concerns about the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety (14). However, it is important to note that the emergence of Hendra virus and creation of a vaccine were relatively new at the time of its introduction, which caused apprehension among Australian horse owners (14). Vaccines mentioned in this survey are more established, and perceptions may differ when it comes to newer vaccines.

Participants often associated communicable diseases (i.e., strangles, EHV, and EI) with attendance at competitions, with little perceived risk of vector-borne diseases (i.e., Lyme disease and WNV). Outbreaks have been frequently reported at competition events — most recently an EHV-1 outbreak in Valencia, Spain in 2021 and an EI outbreak in Great Britain in 2019; but also larger-scale outbreaks such as the 2011 EHV-1 outbreak in Utah, USA and the 2007 EI outbreak in Australia (15–18). Those outbreaks demonstrated how competition events may increase the risk of contracting communicable diseases, suggesting that participants’ concerns about these risks are well placed. Vector-borne diseases should still be considered, especially when spending long intervals outdoors where vector populations (e.g., mosquitoes) are established (3). However, the risk of contracting vector-borne diseases may fluctuate depending on location and type of environment (e.g., marshes) (3). As changes in climate and other ecological factors continue to increase, perceptions of these diseases are likely to change as the actual risk of disease increases over the coming years (19).

Furthermore, participants perceived only a slight risk regarding communicable diseases when their horse was boarded with other horses that frequently attended competitions. However, it is important to recognize that communicable diseases, such as strangles and EHV, are transmissible from horse to horse. Without proper separation between competition and regularly boarded horses, the risk extends to all horses at the facility (3). Evidently, participants seemed less concerned about others attending competitions than about they themselves attending. Although > 1/2 reported having a biosecurity plan involving quarantining or isolating sick or incoming horses, and requiring horses to be up to date on core vaccinations, implementation of measures such as risk-based vaccinations, handwashing, boot washing, and preventing nose-to-nose contact among horses at home facilities was relatively low. These measures were often recommended but not consistently adopted by most participants. This suggesed a prioritization of direct-to-horse efforts over daily practices at the horse-owner level.

The low uptake of certain biosecurity measures among horse owners could be due to perceived ineffectiveness, a barrier described in other equine and bovine biosecurity studies (8,20). If horse owners doubt the effectiveness of certain measures, they may not feel motivated to practice them (20). In addition, limited facilities and equipment availability were identified as barriers hindering full implementation of recommended measures. Some participants also expressed concerns about being labeled as “overly cautious” by peers. Relying on social media or word of mouth for disease outbreak information can lead to misinformation and worries about stigmatization, as seen in various health contexts (21–23). Improved communication channels and reliable disease news sources are needed to reduce misconceptions and support informed decision-making among horse owners.

Two distinct personality clusters were identified in this study. Cluster 1 included participants who scored higher on the extraversion scale. In the context of this study, Cluster 1 participants exhibited behaviors such as being more involved in competitions, seeking information from other horse owners, and receiving news about disease outbreaks from their veterinarians. Their higher level of extraversion may contribute to their willingness to engage with others and actively participate in equine-related activities. In contrast, participants in Cluster 2 scored higher on the neuroticism scale. These individuals may be more prone to stress and may have a greater sensitivity to potential risks or threats (24). Cluster 2 individuals exhibited more variability with their biosecurity decisions than Cluster 1 individuals, who exhibited more consistent behavior.

In health-behavior studies, neuroticism and extraversion tend to be frequently correlated with certain health behaviors. Neuroticism in individuals has been linked to mental health diagnoses such as depression, as well as physical ailments such as cardiovascular disease and poor sleep quality (25–27). In contrast, extraversion has been linked with positive health outcomes and a more positive mental disposition (28,29). A similar study, which focused on sociopsychological factors and biosecurity use on French duck farms, used HCA and identified 3 distinct clusters (30). One cluster had traits associated with neuroticism, with farmers feeling more socially responsible for disease prevention, acknowledging a farmer’s role in public health (30). Another cluster had positive attitudes towards biosecurity, believing biosecurity to be beneficial in terms of productivity and disease prevention (30). In contrast, the final cluster exhibited low conscientiousness and had negative attitudes towards biosecurity, doubting its cost-effectiveness and time-saving nature (30). These findings stressed the importance of considering individual differences and tailoring strategies to match attitudes and behaviors linked to various personality traits.

There were several limitations of this study. First, we relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall or social desirability bias. Participants might have provided responses that they believed were expected or socially acceptable, potentially leading to inaccuracies, such as underreporting of negative behaviors such as low biosecurity use. In addition, recruitment methods such as social media and in-person approaches could have introduced selection bias, limiting representation of certain subgroups within the equestrian community. Moreover, for efficiency, this study also relied on the shortened version of the BFI to assess personality traits, thus potentially not capturing the full complexity of those traits. It is also important to note that personality traits are nuanced and variation may exist within identified clusters. Although clustering aimed to distinguish distinct groups based on personality profiles, it does not imply identical traits or behaviors within each cluster.

In conclusion, based on the findings of this study, several recommendations can be made to enhance biosecurity implementation among Ontario horse owners. First, fostering collaboration and improving communication channels among horse owners, veterinarians, and industry professionals is crucial to promote a culture of accepted biosecurity use within the industry. By working together and ensuring accurate and timely dissemination of information on disease risks, industry members can normalize and encourage adoption of best practices. Second, providing tailored support and resources to the horse industry, such as offering checklists and guidelines matched to different types of facility, can account for differences in personality, facility characteristics, risk factors, and risk understanding. By addressing individual differences in risk perceptions, anxiety levels, and information-seeking preferences, tailored strategies can be designed to effectively promote biosecurity use among horse owners. Further studies should explore how personality can be integrated into educational materials. Future research should focus on specific subgroups within the horse community, to identify their unique barriers and motivators. In addition, evaluating the effectiveness of current interventions may help identify gaps in knowledge translation and inform development of targeted strategies to enhance biosecurity implementation.