Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40150328›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

A Metric-Based, Meta-Analytic Appraisal of Environmental Enrichment Efficacy in Captive Primates.

Luke Mangaliso Duncan, Neville Pillay

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Luke Mangaliso DuncanDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, 6 University Rd, Coventry CV4 7EQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6621-1762
Neville PillaySchool of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-726X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-human primates (hereafter 'primates') constitute a common group of animals in captivity but their captive maintenance involves ethical and husbandry issues, many of which can be addressed through environmental enrichment (hereafter 'enrichment'). Enrichment is often applied in a trial-and-error fashion or based on subjective assessments of efficacy. Thus, a predictive framework for enrichment is necessary to ensure it achieves the desired outcomes. As one of the initial steps towards the development of a predictive enrichment science, we aimed to identify the most effective enrichment approaches for captive primates. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature and extracted information on methodological approaches, experimental design, species and environmental context. We developed and applied a novel efficacy index score to each study protocol as a comparable metric of enrichment efficacy in order to appraise current enrichment practices. Our findings suggest that captive primate enrichment approaches vary in their efficacy, with training-based enrichment being the most effective. Furthermore, the social context of subjects appears to influence efficacy, with primates housed alone deriving the most benefit from enrichment. A species' natural minimum group size may also influence enrichment efficacy but this relationship requires further investigation. Testing and reporting trends for captive primate enrichment are presented and discussed, highlighting important gaps in the literature and avenues of future research while identifying the beneficial effects of different enrichment practices.

Indexed as

animal managementanimal welfarecaptivityenvironmental enrichmentprimate

Identifiers

PMID40150328
PMCPMC11939658

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.