Talk:Hippotherapy

Comments

This is pure quackery!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.24.207.124 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

wow, i love therapuetic riding and i hop to go into a job with it

anybody knnow any good colleges for a job with hippotherapy

There is a college in Laurinburg, N.C. that has a major in Hippotherapy. . .St. Andrews Presbyterian College

Hippotherapy is provided by speech, occupational and physical therapist. Therefore you must receive a degree in SLP, OT or PT prior to providing hippotherapy. Additonal training in hippotherapy is provided by the American Hippotherapy Association. The above mentioned school, St. Andrews, provides a four year degree for Therapeutic Horsemanship. This allows you to provde recreational or sport based riding lessons to persons with disabilities. There are NO degrees in hippotherapy, there are no hippotherapists. For more information check out www.americanhippotherapyassociation.org 65.41.92.189 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)KarmaAnais

Hippotherapy is treatment strategy by licensed medical professionals OT PT SLP. Hippotherapy is not a career. RCasady (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworking

I've reworked this article a lot. A great deal of the information in prior revisions involved repetition of information contained in prior sections (e.g., how hippotherapy is incorporated into a total care plan). Furthermore, I saw a lot of peacock terms in the use of terms like "special training", "licensed professional", etc. This isn't particularly encyclopedic, important or necessary; Wikipedia isn't a guide to medical treatment or who you can get treatment from. Information on indications and the effectiveness especially needs support in reliable sources, preferably ones compliant with WP:MEDRS. The Aetna guideline is a good start in my view, but there should be more out there, and there should be a better way of discussing the conclusions of these guidelines... but I'm not terribly experienced with articles in this subject field. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, and find all the reliable sources you can! We love footnotes! I'm one of the editors in WPEQ, and we aren't precisely experts either, but I do have some background in psych, and if something about the horse stuff is off, I will probably be able to spot it or answer any questions. These articles have been sort of a dumping ground for people with a promotional agenda for some time, so anything you can do to improve them, please be bold and charge ahead! There were about three different articles out there, seems like every person with a different approach wants to form their own group, which of course is ENTIRELY different from someone else's group. I like your approach of finding neutral sources, particularly insurance companies and the like. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Norcross poll rated it as discredited

Apparently this poll by Norcross et al rated equine therapy as somewhat discredited. See, Norcross, J. C.; Koocher, G. P.; Garofalo, A. (2006). "Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 37 (5): 515. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515 --Reconsolidation (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Google it at Google Scholar and there are about 10,000 articles on the topic. It's in that gray area of "still being studied." All the animal-assisted therapies get some criticism, as do most fields of alternative therapy and medicine. Nothing new here. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cerebral palsy

This source seems useful:

• Tseng SH, Chen HC, Tam KW (2013). "Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of equine assisted activities and therapies on gross motor outcome in children with cerebral palsy". Disabil Rehabil (Systematic review). 35 (2): 89–99. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.687033. PMID 22630812.

If I can get my head round it, I'll integrate it soon. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Material

The review of the sources out there seem to be consolidating over at the Therapeutic horseback riding article. I suggest staying with neutral phrasing here and not keep pushing the "no good evidence" thing -- for one thing, this article addresses speech and occupational therapy as well as mental health stuff, and there is also a lack of standardized terminology. There is almost a need to look at the actual definitions of Hippotherapy as of 2015, as some of the material in here was pretty old. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:V is important of course; we should be accurate in our summary of the source. The mental health aspect is an important aspect and there is no reason to strip it from the lede, which is meant to contain this kind of content. As for consolidation, all he horse-therapy type articles should probably be merged I think. Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There is some argument to be made for a merge to a unified article called Equine-assisted therapy (which currently redirects to the therapeutic riding article -- and shouldn't), but the therapeutic riding would still need to be a separate article as it is pretty major all by itself. Not all equine therapies involve riding. Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Article improvement discussion

In this edit[1] MontanaBW has removed content sourced to good WP:MEDRS (including a systematic review and the opinion of Autism Research) and reinserted their own poorly-sourced and unsourced content. This is damaging. Alexbrn (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I chopped and then re-added it; [2], [3] But also kept some of the material you removed. I usually edit by restoring a version I'm familiar with and then reviewing the changes to see what can be kept. Next time, give me five or ten minutes and do a little AGF. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well don't - it is disruptive. There's a "preview" button for a reason. Alexbrn (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You edit with your style, I'll edit with mine. It's far easier for me to start with what I am more familiar with and work forward than to reconstruct backwards. A bit of patience and good faith is always helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Hippotherapy is not a form of mental health treatment"

Why was this text put in the lede? Ledes are meant to summarize the body and not contain novel content. Furthermore, it seems to be simply untrue.[4] Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Equine-assisted psychotherapy and hippotherapy aren't the same thing, (at least not in the USA) though people confuse the two terms. I put that in because there was a whole bunch of stuff discussing EAP that is irrelevant to this article. We probably need to add a proper definitions section. Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So it's not true, it's not sourced, and you've edit-warred it in because you want it to rule out sources you don't like. Well! Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex, we can just continue the discussion at the article talk at equine-assisted therapy where others interested in the topic can join us. I am vey tired of your consistent misattribution of motive to me. There clearly is a terminology problem, and that's a concern. Maybe pop that source link in at the article talk and we can work up a terminology section here that is similar to the one I created there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You are edit-warring your own unsourced opinion into the lede, which is not good. Even according to your favoured insurance company document (also edit-warred in by you), hippotherapy is used to treat psychiatric disorders (= "mental illness"). Thus you were making the lede contradict the article. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The mental health material in this article should be probably removed throughout once we get the terminology clarified. There is a terminology issue, and I suggest we discuss the whole thing over at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. I also suggest that your constant accusations of "edit-warring" are not helping to create a collaborative atmosphere. I suggest you cease the personal attacks and focus on research and content. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)