Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38751800›Full record

ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2024

Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions.

Ellen Williams, Jennifer Sadler, Steven Mark Rutter, Clara Mancini, Christian Nawroth, Joseph M Neary, Samantha J Ward, Gemma Charlton, Annabelle Beaver

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Ellen WilliamsDepartment of Animal Health, Behaviour & Welfare, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-1605
Jennifer SadlerDepartment of Animal Health, Behaviour & Welfare, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5089-5059
Steven Mark RutterDepartment of Animal Health, Behaviour & Welfare, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9259-6061
Clara ManciniSchool of Computing and Communications, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1555-077X
Christian NawrothResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4582-4057
Joseph M NearyDepartment of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8438-2234
Samantha J WardAnimal, Rural & Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Southwell, Nottinghamshire, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-1071
Gemma CharltonDepartment of Animal Health, Behaviour & Welfare, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8395-3821
Annabelle BeaverDepartment of Animal Health, Behaviour & Welfare, Harper Adams University, Edgmond, Newport, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2953-9574

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals under human care are exposed to a potentially large range of both familiar and unfamiliar humans. Human-animal interactions vary across settings, and individuals, with the nature of the interaction being affected by a suite of different intrinsic and extrinsic factors. These interactions can be described as positive, negative or neutral. Across some industries, there has been a move towards the development of technologies to support or replace human interactions with animals. Whilst this has many benefits, there can also be challenges associated with increased technology use. A day-long Animal Welfare Research Network workshop was hosted at Harper Adams University, UK, with the aim of bringing together stakeholders and researchers (n = 38) from the companion, farm and zoo animal fields, to discuss benefits, challenges and limitations of human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions for animals under human care and create a list of future research priorities. The workshop consisted of four talks from experts within these areas, followed by break-out room discussions. This work is the outcome of that workshop. The key recommendations are that approaches to advancing the scientific discipline of machine-animal interactions in animals under human care should focus on: (1) interdisciplinary collaboration; (2) development of validated methods; (3) incorporation of an animal-centred perspective; (4) a focus on promotion of positive animal welfare states (not just avoidance of negative states); and (5) an exploration of ways that machines can support a reduction in the exposure of animals to negative human-animal interactions to reduce negative, and increase positive, experiences for animals.

Indexed as

animal-centred perspectiveanimals under human careanimal welfarecross-industry collaborationhuman-animal interactionsmachine-animal interactions

Identifiers

PMID38751800
PMCPMC11094549

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.