Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36084063›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

"What can we do to actually reach all these animals?" Evaluating approaches to improving working equid welfare.

Emily Haddy, Julia Brown, Faith Burden, Zoe Raw, Juliane Kaminski, Leanne Proops

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily HaddyCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6696-0088
Julia BrownSchool of the Environment, Geography & Geosciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Faith BurdenThe Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, United Kingdom.
Zoe RawThe Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, United Kingdom.
Juliane KaminskiCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Leanne ProopsCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
University of Portsmouth · GBSidmouth Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

NGOs utilise a range of programming to bring about desired changes. This study examines the advantages and limitations of the range of approaches used by one particular NGO sector: working equid welfare organisations, from the perspective of NGO staff. NGO staff hold a wealth of knowledge regarding the design and implementation of welfare improvement initiatives; however this knowledge is rarely systematically documented. Through 32 semi-structured interviews the experiences of staff across multiple organisations were explored. The nine most commonly utilised approaches within equid focussed NGO programming were discussed with participants. Many themes resulting from the interviews centred around the strengths and disadvantages of these individual approaches, implemented both historically and presently by different NGOs. The influences of the context in which initiatives took place and barriers to welfare improvement that existed across approaches were also examined. Striking a balance came through as a strong theme at many levels. Balancing top-down versus bottom-up approaches was a frequently voiced concern, as was balancing the utility of certain approaches against associated factors warranting caution. Combinations of approaches that were felt to be complementary provided a balance that drew on the strengths and mitigated for the weaknesses of different approaches. The need to tailor approaches to individual contexts was also raised and is especially relevant to INGOs working across multiple countries, cultures and political structures. The study provides an informed insight into potential factors to consider when designing future welfare initiatives. The collaborative pooling of experience across different NGOs could help make welfare initiatives more effective and provide a framework for NGOs in other fields to learn from each other's collective knowledge.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesOrganizationsAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID36084063
PMCPMC9462723
OpenAlexW4295048281

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.