ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020
Interactive Data-Gathering Posters as a Research Tool: A Case Study Assessing Public Opinion on Incorporation of Natural Behavior into Management Systems.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Farmer and Consumer Responses to African Swine Fever Outbreaks: Implications for Post-Outbreak Control and Eradication.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Passengers as Pathways: Behavioral Evidence on Travelers' Knowledge of African Swine Fever Introduction Through Pork Products.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Student Pharmacists' Perspectives of In-Person versus Virtual Research Poster Presentations.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We developed a simple, interactive poster design. Via brief infographics and simple numbered stickers, participants were able to provide input about their top three areas of importance regarding a specific topic (i.e., promoting natural behavior in goats). The tool was utilized in three scenarios-an international conference, a regional veterinary conference, and a regional school leadership day. After a short discussion with the presenter, participants ranked their top three areas of importance. Response rates ranged from 22% to 100%. The data collection performed was intended to demonstrate a proof-of-concept of the poster design; therefore, comparisons across tested cohorts were not made. However, we showed that when applied in different settings, the poster gathered some consistent opinions on which behaviors are the best exemplars of naturalness in goats. Response bias, from opting for socially desirable responses, as well as sampling bias from using the tool at specific conferences or with specific demographics, could be an issue. Nonetheless, these are not unique concerns, and we suggest that corrections used in focus groups could alleviate these biases. The flexibility of this interactive tool, and its capability to shift the audience from viewing to participating in research presents a novel alternative to traditional poster presentations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.