ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Official and private animal welfare inspectors' perception of their own on-site inspections.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of a trustworthy and effective animal welfare control system is important both for animal welfare and for public and consumer trust. The inspectors' main task, regardless of whether they are official inspectors or private auditors, is to check for and enforce compliance with any relevant regulations. The aim of this study was to investigate how official animal welfare inspectors and private animal welfare auditors in Sweden perceive their inspection work and to explore any differences in the perception of being an inspector between these two groups. An electronic questionnaire was developed and received responses from 108 official inspectors and 22 private auditors (mainly inspecting the KRAV standard, Arlagården®, and the Trotter Health Standard). The results show that the official inspectors and private auditors usually enjoy their work, and they quite often have similar ambitions and views on what characterizes a good inspector. The respondents stated, for example, that it is important to have good dialog with the inspected animal keeper, that it is important to make uniform assessments (even if this can be challenging to achieve), and that animal keepers quite often show their appreciation after an inspection. However, there were also a number of differences in perception between the groups. For example, the official inspectors felt more exposed to unpleasant and threatening situations, while the private auditors were more likely to report the keeper being expected as acting nicely, professionally and relaxed during routine inspections. The official inspectors had a slightly more negative attitude toward the presence of private auditors than the other way around. Nevertheless, the respondents were in agreement that their collaboration and communication needed to be improved. One should bear in mind that the official inspectors also carry out inspections after complaints and more often make unannounced inspections. They not only inspect farms and horse premises, as the private auditors do, they also inspect different pet premises and have a secondary position of power as representatives of the government compared to the private auditors. These various circumstances may partly explain different views and perceptions between the official inspectors and the private auditors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.