A comparison of the estrous behavior of Holstein-Friesian cows when cubicle-housed and at pasture

This study compared estrous behavior of dairy cows kept in cubicle housing and fed a total mixed ration diet (HOUSED treatment) with that of cows kept at pasture with concentrate supplementation (PASTURE treatment). Behavior was compared both in the 48 h around standing estrus and during the standing estrus period. The 23 spring-calving Holstein-Friesians in each treatment were observed directly three times per day for nine weeks. The occurrence of nine selected behaviors associated with estrus was recorded during 20 min observation sessions. Twelve standing estrus events from each treatment were selected for analysis of the frequency of these nine behaviours over the 48 h around standing estrus. Milk progesterone profiles were used to confirm the dates of standing estrus events. Attempting to mount other cows, sniffing the anogenital region of other cows, resting the chin on other cows, receiving chin rests and head-to-head butts all showed significant changes in frequency in the 48 h around standing estrus in both treatments, reaching a peak during standing estrus (P ≤ 0.05). Mounting other cows increased significantly in the PASTURE treatment around standing estrus (P <0.001), but not in the HOUSED treatment. The frequency of ano-genital sniffs received by the animals in the PASTURE treatment also increased significantly around standing estrus (P <0.01) but not in the HOUSED treatment. When the animals were in standing estrus there was a significantly higher frequency of standing to be mounted in PASTURE than in HOUSED cows (median (q1, q3) PASTURE = 2.5 (1.0, 3.0), HOUSED = 0.0 (0.0, 1.0)) (P <0.01), but no difference in the frequency of the other eight sexual behaviors recorded. HOUSED cows did not exhibit the same increase in mounting during the standing estrus period as PASTURE cows and received fewer mounts in observation sessions during standing estrus. These results have implications for the use of estrus detection systems that rely solely on mounting behavior in cubicle-housed dairy cows. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Behavior change theory, content and delivery of interventions to enhance adherence in chronic respiratory disease: A systematic review

Background: We sought to describe the theory used to design treatment adherence interventions, the content delivered, and the mode of delivery of these interventions in chronic respiratory disease. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials of adherence interventions (compared to another intervention or control) in adults with chronic respiratory disease (8 databases searched; inception until March 2015). Two reviewers screened and extracted data: post-intervention adherence (measured objectively); behavior change theory, content (grouped into psychological, education and self-management/supportive, telemonitoring, shared decision-making); and delivery. “Effective” studies were those with p < 0.05 for adherence rate between groups. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias. Results: 12,488 articles screened; 46 included studies (n = 42,91% in OSA or asthma) testing 58 interventions (n = 27, 47% were effective). Nineteen (33%) interventions (15 studies) used 12 different behavior change theories. Use of theory (n = 11,41%) was more common amongst effective interventions. Interventions were mainly educational, self-management or supportive interventions (n = 27,47%). They were commonly delivered by a doctor (n = 20,23%), in face-to-face (n = 48,70%), one-to-one (n = 45,78%) outpatient settings (n = 46,79%) across 2–5 sessions (n = 26,45%) for 1–3 months (n = 26,45%). Doctors delivered a lower proportion (n = 7,18% vs n = 13,28%) and pharmacists (n = 6,15% vs n = 1,2%) a higher proportion of effective than ineffective interventions. Risk of bias was high in >1 domain (n = 43, 93%) in most studies. Conclusions: Behavior change theory was more commonly used to design effective interventions. Few adherence interventions have been developed using theory, representing a gap between intervention design recommendations and research practice.