Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39630686›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

"Maybe we should think outside the box?" prioritisation of issues with UK not-for-profit canine health and welfare research funding using Delphi expert consensus and gap analysis.

Alison M Skipper, Rowena M A Packer, Dan G O'Neill

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Alison M SkipperDepartment of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9770-4378
Rowena M A PackerDepartment of Clinical Science and Services, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.
Dan G O'NeillDepartment of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over fifty participants, who together possessed broad research, veterinary and front-line expertise from across the canine health and welfare sector, contributed to a modified Delphi study to identify the highest priority research topics in UK canine health and welfare, the highest priorities for future research approaches, and the highest priorities for future reform in research processes and infrastructure, through group consensus. Further analysis also compared the prioritisation of selected research topics to the actual levels of research funding they previously received, through comparison with historical data. Most of the identified highest priority issues relating to canine health and welfare and its research concerned various aspects of the human-canine relationship, such as ownership or behavioural issues. Participants strongly emphasised the complexity of interrelated factors that impact the welfare of both dogs and people. Research topics identified as previously 'most underfunded' all concerned real-world canine welfare issues, particularly emphasising the breeding and supply of dogs. A supplementary analysis of historical research funding (2012-2022) for common chronic disorders in primary care practice, another identified highest priority topic, identified periodontal disease, anal sac disorders, overgrown nails and patellar luxation as the 'most underfunded' conditions. Most of the identified highest priority research approaches and methodologies concerned real-world design and execution aspects of canine health and welfare research, such as impact and engagement, with a strong focus on research investigating the human factors in canine welfare. Aspects of research funding infrastructure that were considered highest priority for future change mostly concerned increased transparency of funding processes and increased collaboration between stakeholder groups throughout the funding sector, which was strongly supported. Overall, these findings emphasise the importance of considering and including human factors and real-world impact, where appropriate, as key elements for optimising the relevance of canine health and welfare research.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareDelphi TechniqueAnimalsDogsHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID39630686
PMCPMC11616890

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.