ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Veterinary professional identity: Conceptual analysis and location in a practice theory framework.
Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Student Perceptions of Fee Policies in Veterinary Medicine: An Ethical and Professional Identity Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- A dynamic framework of professional identity formation in trainees for low-resource settings: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Veterinarian-Client Communication as a Driver of Burnout: A Scoping Review of Relational Risk and Protective Resources.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- A participatory rapid ethnographic assessment protocol for studying human-animal-material interactions in veterinary clinical practice.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- The 3Fs as conditions of being: relational ontology and equine welfare in disaster response and reconciliation.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professional, social, and cultural issues and phenomena of veterinary practice are now established areas of commentary and interest in research, education, professional publications and even in the mainstream media. Despite the availability of theoretically informed literature in diverse relevant domains and disciplines including professional practice, workplace learning, and medical sociology and anthropology, commentary and research on veterinary practice issues and phenomena remains dominated by clinician-educators and clinician-policymakers. Reflecting the clinical disciplinary traditions, there is a resulting over-representation of individualistic, positivist perspectives and under-theorized research studies. In this paper we provide an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for veterinary practice and veterinary professional identity grounded in a practice theory perspective. We begin by arguing for the need for such a framework by scoping veterinary practice in its contemporary social context. We go on to provide a sociocultural framing of veterinary practice, underlining the mutual constitution of individuals and the social world through participation in practices and taking into consideration important concepts including knowledge, institutions, ethics, and embodiment. We assert the importance of professional identity as a core phenomenon of veterinary practice, constituted by making meaning of professional practice experiences, especially through narrative and dialogue. This practice theory framework for veterinary practice and veterinary professional identity development provides rich opportunities for understanding, researching, and enacting diverse activities and phenomena, especially learning, development and change within and beyond formal educational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.