Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34631860›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Animal Welfare Control-Inspection Findings and the Threshold for Requesting a Police Investigation.

Elli Valtonen, Tarja Koskela, Anna Valros, Laura Hänninen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elli ValtonenDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tarja KoskelaDepartment of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland.
Anna ValrosDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Laura HänninenDepartment of Production Animal Medicine, Research Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
University of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An increasing proportion of animal welfare violations in Finland are related to companion animals. However, only a small number of these issues are investigated or prosecuted. The aims of this study were (i) to describe the inspection findings and the resulting actions of the official municipal veterinarians in the Finnish Capital Region and (ii) to identify the factors that predict their submissions of investigation requests to the police. Our data consisted of animal welfare complaints and official veterinarians' inspection reports and decisions from 811 cases of animal welfare control in the Finnish Capital Region. The data covered the period from March 2019 to April 2020. We performed logistic regression analyses to identify the factors that best predict when official veterinarians detect non-compliances and report the cases for police investigation. In 86% (696/811) of the cases, the veterinarians performed at least one animal welfare inspection, and/or received information from the police, or otherwise investigated the complaint. The most common forms of non-compliance were lack of basic maintenance and care (42%, 295/696) and insufficient veterinary care (27%, 185/696). The veterinarians requested for a police investigation in 9.6% (44/460) of all cases with detected non-compliances. The best predictors for detecting non-compliances with the animal welfare legislation were complaints of insufficient veterinary care (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.4), the cases assessed by the information from the police and/or an animal shelter (OR 15.2, CI 7.9-29.2), at least one inspection in an animal's premises with prior warning (OR 11.2, CI 5.5-22.6), and without prior warning (OR 17.0, CI 9.7-29.5). Complaints of violence against animals were negatively associated with detecting non-compliances (OR 0.5, CI 0.3-0.9). However, the detection of violence against animals predicted requests for police investigations (OR 9.3, CI 3.1-27.9), as did the execution of permanent urgent measures by official veterinarians (OR 4.9, CI 1.9-12.9). To improve the animal welfare control system and the investigation of crimes against animals, cooperation between officials should be developed. Further studies are needed to improve the understanding of the prevalence of violence against animals, and to advance methods used by animal welfare control to identify cases of violence.

Indexed as

animal welfarecompanion animalsinspectionsinvestigation requestsnon-compliance

Identifiers

PMID34631860
PMCPMC8495059
OpenAlexW3187781208

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.