Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40371174›Full record

ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025

Animal welfare definitions, frameworks, and assessment tools: Advancing the measurement and laying the foundation for improved animal welfare through a three-step approach.

F Josef van der Staay, Vivian C Goerlich, Franck Lb Meijboom, Saskia S Arndt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. PsittaWel: A welfare assessment tool for companion parrots.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

F Josef van der StaayDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Division of Farm Animal Health, Behaviour and Welfare Group (Formerly: Emotion and Cognition Group), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8704-3366
Vivian C GoerlichDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Division of Animals in Science and Society, Animal Behaviour Group, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8586-4435
Franck Lb MeijboomDepartment Population Health Sciences, Division of Animals in Science & Society, Sustainable Animal Stewardship, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0752-016X
Saskia S ArndtDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Division of Animals in Science and Society, Animal Behaviour Group, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-1158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To qualify and quantify animal welfare, novel assessment tools have been and are being developed, while existing assessment tools are being modified so that they can be applied to multiple species living under different housing and management conditions. The results of such assessments should be reliable, consistent and reproducible. We review the steps that should ideally be taken to develop, validate and apply animal welfare assessment tools. The first step should be to find a definition of animal welfare that the various stakeholders can agree upon. The second step should be to formulate and agree upon a framework for the evaluation of animal welfare. Both theoretical/conceptual frameworks, which provide a structure for research and suggest which facets are considered important, and ethical frameworks, which explicate the underlying moral position, should be considered. Finally, animal welfare assessment tools should be developed and validated based on both the adopted welfare definition and the welfare evaluation framework(s). However, this three-step approach has not always been followed in the development of welfare assessment tools currently in use. We expect that transparency and clarity regarding the underlying definitions and frameworks will increase the likelihood that the resulting welfare assessment tools will give similar weight to the aspects considered relevant to animal welfare, as it helps to specify the aspects that are considered to be key elements of animal welfare. This approach should lead to convergent assessment results and higher correlation of welfare indicators between assessment tools.

Indexed as

animal welfareethics frameworksFive Domains modelFive FreedomsQuality of Lifestakeholders

Identifiers

PMID40371174
PMCPMC12075010

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.