ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Assessment of the Awareness and Use of Quality of Life Tools in Small Animal Practices in Germany.
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. 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
Abstract
The assessment of animal welfare and quality of life (QoL) is a critical aspect of veterinary practice. While the development of standardized tools to measure QoL has been widely discussed, there is limited research analyzing how these tools are applied in clinical practice. This study investigates the current state of QoL assessment in small animal medicine in Germany through a mixed-methods approach. A survey was conducted with veterinarians and veterinary assistants, assessing the awareness and use of QoL assessment tools in practice. In addition, interviews with veterinarians were conducted to examine their perceptions and experiences regarding the use of QoL measurement tools and the assessment of QoL itself. The findings indicate that the use of standardized QoL assessments is rare and often primarily done while doing studies. Factors hindering the widespread use of these instruments include lack of time, lack of awareness, the perceived lack of need and resistance to fitting the individuality and subjectivity of QoL into a schema. As beneficial features of such tools, veterinarians mentioned the possibility of documenting and tracking QoL and the enhancement of the relationship between professionals and clients. Further research should therefore not only focus on development but also on dissemination of such tools.
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.