Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40872647›Full record

ArticleVeterinary sciences2025

The Dual Character of Animal-Centred Care: Relational Approaches in Veterinary and Animal Sanctuary Work.

Anna K E Schneider, Marc J Bubeck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Anna K E SchneiderFAU Kompetenzzentrum für interdisziplinäre Wissenschaftsreflexion, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Marc J BubeckFaculty for Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, 14469 Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-0667-6191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caring for the lives and welfare of animals is central to veterinary and animal sanctuary work, yet the meaning remains a subject of complex debates. Different stakeholders negotiate what constitutes appropriate care, leading to conflicting demands and expectations from internal and external sources. This article is based on two qualitative studies: Study I explores the multifaceted aspects of death work in farm animal medicine, emphasising the practical, emotional and ethical challenges involved. Study II examines human-animal interaction in sanctuaries, which reveal tensions between instrumental and relational care in animal-centred work. Relational care represents a subjectifying approach with individual attention to animals, while instrumental care is a more objectifying perspective based on species representation. These demands can often be contradictory, complicating day-to-day decision making under pressure. To analyse these complexities, this study employs Clarke's situational analysis (social worlds/arenas mapping), providing a means of comparing care work across different fields. This approach highlights how actor constellations, institutional settings, and structural constraints influence the negotiation of care. Addressing these issues provides a more nuanced understanding of the professional challenges of animal-centred care and the necessary skills to navigate its inherent contradictions.

Indexed as

animal rightsanimal welfarecare ethicseuthanasiaqualitative methodsworking with animals

Identifiers

PMID40872647
PMCPMC12390183

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.