Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32503219›Full record

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.

Mike King, James Webster, Catherine Cameron, Gosia Zobel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mike KingOtago Bioethics Centre, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin PO Box 913, New Zealand.
James WebsterAgResearch Ltd., Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.
Catherine CameronAgResearch Ltd., Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.
Gosia ZobelAgResearch Ltd., Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand.

Funding

Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment A19041
6 · The paper itself

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

conference techniquesgoatposterpresentationwelfare

Identifiers

PMID32503219
PMCPMC7341241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.