Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123698›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Introducing the Mellorater-The Five Domains Model in a Welfare Monitoring App for Animal Guardians.

Cristina L Wilkins, Paul D McGreevy, Suzanne M Cosh, Cathrynne Henshall, Bidda Jones, Amy D Lykins, William Billingsley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

7 authors.

Cristina L WilkinsSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-4222-1727
Paul D McGreevySydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-8378
Suzanne M CoshSchool of Psychology, The University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8003-3704
Cathrynne HenshallSchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0279-8805
Bidda JonesSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Amy D LykinsSchool of Psychology, The University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.
William BillingsleySchool of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2353, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1720-9076

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When monitoring an animal's welfare, it helps to have comprehensive and day-to-day information about the animal's life. The goal is to ensure that animal guardians (carers, keepers, and owners) use such information to act in the animals' best interests. This article introduces the Mellorater, an animal welfare monitoring app based on the 2020 Five Domains Model. This framework provides a means of capturing comprehensive information about the world in which individual animals exist. The Mellorater asks animal guardians to rate their agreement with 18 statements covering any focal animal's nutrition, environment, health, and behavioural interactions using a five-point Likert scale. No specialist training is required other than following straightforward instructions on using the app, which are provided. The Mellorater is not proposed as a validated welfare auditing tool because it relies on reflective self-reporting and, thus, is vulnerable to the user's subjectivity. If users' subjectivity is stable over time, then the longitudinal data may be considered useful proxies for trends in quality of life. That said, it has the potential to be used by trained auditors if scientifically validated, species-specific indicators are applied. The Mellorater collects anonymous data and has been approved for a study to explore how the use of such scales may differ among guardians of different species and in different contexts. In this paper, we conduct the following: (1) summarise the app's purposes; (2) clarify its capabilities and limitations; and (3) invite animal welfare scholars, veterinarians, health and welfare professionals, and animal guardians to use it.

Indexed as

animal husbandryend-of-life decisionsquality of lifewelfare assessment

Identifiers

PMID39123698
PMCPMC11310947

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.