Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32756492›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2020

Review of the Online One Welfare Portal: Shared Curriculum Resources for Veterinary Undergraduate Learning and Teaching in Animal Welfare and Ethics.

Paul D McGreevy, Anne Fawcett, Jane Johnson, Rafael Freire, Teresa Collins, Chris Degeling, Andrew D Fisher, Susan J Hazel, Jennifer Hood, Janice K F Lloyd and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. One Biology and the Status of Humans.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  3. One welfare: bibliometric review of world literature.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul D McGreevySydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Anne FawcettSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Jane JohnsonDepartment of Philosophy, Hearing Hub, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia.
Rafael FreireSchool of Animal and Veterinary Science, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia.
Teresa CollinsSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
Andrew D FisherFaculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3100, Australia.
Susan J HazelSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5005, Australia.
Jennifer HoodSchool of Veterinary Medicine, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
Janice K F LloydCollege of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
Clive J C PhillipsSchool of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.
Kevin StaffordInstitute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.
Michelle L HydeSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Bethany WilsonSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Vicky TzioumisSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUMurdoch University · AUCharles Sturt University · AUJames Cook University · AUMacquarie University · AUMassey University · NZThe University of Adelaide · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AU

Funding

Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching ID13-2833
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article introduces the online One Welfare learning and teaching portal (OWP) and describes its development, use, importance and relevance to animal welfare and ethics (AWE) stakeholders. As animal welfare issues increase in importance, veterinarians must be trained to lead the science that underpins AWE discourses. The OWP is a collection of resources designed to engage and challenge veterinary science students as they become advocates for animals. It was developed collaboratively by all eight veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand, and funded by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Surveys to investigate the attitudes of students and educators to AWE issues in six context-specific themes based on the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS) (companion animals; animals used in research and teaching; livestock/production animals; animals used for sport, recreation or display; animals in the wild and aquatic animals) were administered through all participating schools. Students assigned more importance to Day One competence in knowledge of welfare concepts than did educators for the following groups: production animals, companion animals, animals in the wild, aquatic animals, animals used in research and teaching, and animals used for sport, recreation or display (all p < 0.01). Agreement between educators and students was closer regarding the importance of Day One competence for euthanasia for all six context-specific themes (p < 0.01 - 0.03). Students assigned more importance than educators to social, economic and cultural drivers of welfare outcomes in production animals (p < 0.01); slaughter and preslaughter inspections in production animals (p < 0.01); animal abuse and hoarding in companion animals (p < 0.01); shelter medicine in companion animals (p < 0.01); disaster preparedness in wildlife animals (p < 0.01); pain and distress caused by fishing in aquatic animals (p < 0.01); conscientious objection related to animals held for research and teaching (p < 0.01); behaviour, selection and training of animals used for sport, recreation and display (p = 0.046) and educating the public around sporting animal welfare (p < 0.01). Agreement between educators and students was closer for strategies to address painful husbandry procedures in production animals (p = 0.03); behaviour and training of companion animals (p = 0.03); veterinarians' duties to wild animals in wildlife (p = 0.02); the 3Rs in animals held for research and teaching (p = 0.03) and ownership responsibility in sporting animals (p = 0.01). This report discusses the reasons for differences among students and educators as they approach these issues. The portal is expected to gather more content as veterinary schools in other countries use its resources and users submit scenarios and discussion topics that reflect local needs.

Indexed as

animal ethicsanimal welfarelearning and teachingOne Welfareonline curriculum resourcesveterinary medicine

Identifiers

PMID32756492
PMCPMC7460400
OpenAlexW3046657255

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.