Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40075960›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Experiences of End-of-Life Decision-Making in Equine Veterinary and Charity Teams.

Amelia Cameron, Megan Geldard, Tim Mair, Gary England, John Burford, Sarah Freeman, Kristian Pollock, Eleanor Wilson

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. Development of the Human-Equine Attachment Scale.Equine veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  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

8 authors.

Amelia CameronSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7190-0722
Megan GeldardSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.
Tim MairBell Equine Veterinary Clinic, CVS Group Ltd., Mereworth ME18 5GS, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9744-9909
Gary EnglandSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5800-3106
John BurfordSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0505-1520
Sarah FreemanSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3119-2207
Kristian PollockNottingham Centre for the Advancement of Research into Supportive, Palliative and End of Life Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6836-8595
Eleanor WilsonNottingham Centre for the Advancement of Research into Supportive, Palliative and End of Life Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0419-5901

Funding

The Horse Trust G1020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Veterinary and charity teams are frequently involved in equine end-of-life decisions. These can cause ethical dilemmas and emotional burdens and complicate communication with owners. Semi-structured focus groups explored experiences of making decisions about end-of-life care and euthanasia at three UK equine veterinary practices and one charity. There were 26 participants in a mix of roles. Inductive coding was conducted during thematic analysis. Major themes generated were 'Equine Welfare', 'Relationships', 'Decision-Making', and 'Emotional Toll and Coping Strategies'. Communication, finances, and chronic vs. acute cases were key issues featured within multiple themes. The individual horse's welfare was the participants' priority during decision-making. However, there were barriers to coming to a decision about treatment or euthanasia, and conflict caused by these barriers could detrimentally affect participants' mental health. Preferred style of decision-making varied depending on the situation. Examples given included shared decision-making, participants steering the decision, and attempts by participants or owners to shift decisional responsibility onto the other party. Some owners sought additional input into decisions from veterinary nurses and receptionists. Participants found aspects of their roles emotionally challenging. This could be mitigated by supportive relationships and communication with colleagues. Involving veterinary team members in varying roles in end-of-life care planning and euthanasia decision-making with owners contributes a range of skills and expertise and helps to share the burden of responsibility.

Indexed as

communicationequine welfareeuthanasiamental healthshared decision-makingvet-client interactions

Identifiers

PMID40075960
PMCPMC11898496

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.