Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41681351›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026

A Comparative Analysis of International Dog Owner Education Programmes.

Hee Yong Kang, Song Yi Lee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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.

Hee Yong KangDepartment of Counselling and Coaching, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea.
Song Yi LeeDepartment of Counselling and Coaching, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6333-3847

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs increasingly function as relational beings, shaping their guardians' emotional well-being and daily routines. Consequently, dog owner education has expanded beyond behaviour-focused training toward integrative approaches that address the emotional, relational, and cognitive dimensions of the human-dog relationship. Despite this shift, international comparative research on the organisation and institutionalisation of dog owner education remains limited. The study applies a qualitative exploratory comparative case study to examine systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Australia, identifying national patterns and shared components to inform context-appropriate frameworks, particularly in South Korea. The study examines legal and policy documents, institutional guidelines, and standardised education programmes that function as national or de facto standards using document and content analysis. It integrates within- and cross-case comparisons and interprets findings through a framework drawing on human-animal interaction, attachment, canine behaviour, and cognitive-behavioural coaching theories. The analysis reveals five shared components of behaviour change: guardian responsibility and animal welfare, science-based positive reinforcement, early socialisation and prevention, a balance between standardisation and individualisation, and guardians' emotional and relational engagement. These findings suggest that dog owner education functions as an integrated system that supports responsible guardianship and stable human-dog relationships across sociocultural contexts.

Indexed as

animal welfareattachment theorycanine behaviour theorycognitive–behavioural coachingcomparative case studydog owner educationguardianshiphuman–animal interaction

Identifiers

PMID41681351
PMCPMC12897032

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.