Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40075930›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

The Creation of a Systematic Framework to Assess Dog Laws and Their Relationship to Societal Changes in the United Kingdom.

Sarah A Weir, Lynsey McDevitt, Clare P Andrews, Sharon E Kessler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Sarah A WeirDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1885-3330
Lynsey McDevittDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
Clare P AndrewsDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7484-4447
Sharon E KesslerDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs and humans have shared a complex relationship throughout history, with law serving as an important tool to manage dogs' integration into human societies. As dogs increasingly become regarded as family members in Western countries, and as similar trends emerge globally, it is vital to understand how legislation balances the interests of stakeholders. Existing studies often focus on localised disputes and fragmented legal areas, limiting understanding of how dog-related laws interact and potentially conflict. We developed a conceptual framework to systematically analyse dog-related legislation, using the United Kingdom as a case study. Identified through a systematic search, laws were evaluated using content analysis based on the benefits provided to stakeholders, the regulated aspects of dog ownership, and whether benefits afforded to stakeholders occur in public or private spaces. We found that the greatest legislative focus was on dog welfare, dangerous dogs, and dog control, with little emphasis on areas like the breeding and sale of dogs. Eighty-two percent of laws that manage dogs in public space predominantly benefit the general public, often disadvantaging dogs and their owners, while 81% of laws that govern dogs within the home favour dogs. Owners consistently face legal obligations, but gain few benefits. These findings highlight misalignments between the law and dogs' evolving societal roles, potentially contributing to public space conflicts and low compliance. The framework offers a tool for cross-country comparisons and assessing legislation for other species with similarly shifting roles.

Indexed as

animal welfarebreedingcompanion animalsdangerous dogsdog controldogslegal comparisonlegislationregulationsales

Identifiers

PMID40075930
PMCPMC11898190

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.