Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36078014›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students' Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States.

Paxton Sullivan, Sage Mijares, Melissa Davis, Katrina Oselinsky, Catie Cramer, Noa Román-Muñiz, Lorann Stallones, Lily Edwards-Callaway

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Paxton SullivanDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7715-2828
Sage MijaresDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6114-3246
Melissa DavisDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9986-6143
Katrina OselinskyDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.
Catie CramerDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6391-2387
Noa Román-MuñizDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6266-4839
Lorann StallonesDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7616-582X
Lily Edwards-CallawayDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0737-9899

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.

Indexed as

agricultural animalscompanion animalsequidshorseswell-beingwildlife

Identifiers

PMID36078014
PMCPMC9454941

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.