Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37601746›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2023

Choice, control, and animal welfare: definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science.

Maisy D Englund, Katherine A Cronin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Enhancing Rodent Welfare, Cost Savings, and Efficiency: Implementation and Review of Data-Driven Improvements.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Effectual Environmental Enrichments for Commercial Broiler Chickens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Animal Welfare, Agency, and Animal-Computer Interaction.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Maisy D EnglundAnimal Welfare Science Program, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, United States.
Katherine A CroninAnimal Welfare Science Program, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ways in which humans can support good welfare for animals in their care is an ongoing subject of debate: some place emphasis on the animals' physical health; others, on animals' ability to live "natural lives"; and others on animals' affective states or psychological wellbeing. Recently, there has been an increase in interest in how an animal's ability to exercise control over its environment could impact their welfare. In this article, we take the stance that the relevant aspects of the first two concepts of animal welfare (physical health, natural lives) are largely addressed when an animal's psychological wellbeing is prioritized. Through that lens, we review the current state of the literature regarding the psychology of control, and the intersection between choice, control, and welfare. We clarify terms to support future work, and propose future directions that could lead to a better understanding of the psychological benefits of choice and control and ultimately inform animal care decisions.

Indexed as

affective statesagencyanimal welfarechoicecontrolpsychological wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID37601746
PMCPMC10433213

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.