Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41769177›Full record

ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026

Understanding sheep lameness management in relation to culling and the UK five-point plan.

Beth Clark, Niamh Mahon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Beth ClarkCentre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9828-6806
Niamh MahonSocial, Economic, and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lameness remains an ongoing challenge to the health and welfare of UK sheep flocks. Whilst effective recommended practice exists in the UK in the form of the five-point plan (5PP), it is not always used or used effectively, particularly in relation to culling. A more in-depth understanding of farmer lameness management behaviours and decision-making is crucial for driving positive change. Behaviour change frameworks offer useful tools to do this, specifically the Behaviour Change Wheel and its central tenets of capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B). This research sought to explore on-farm management practices surrounding lameness, particularly focused on the 5PP and culling in relation to COM-B. Findings are drawn from five online focus groups with UK farmers (n = 19) and one with veterinarians (n = 4). Thematic analysis led to the identification of themes in relation to the role of capability, opportunity and motivation to enact the steps of the 5PP, particularly culling. Culling, alongside prompt treatment, were the only tools used by all participants. Yet, culling practices did not always follow recommended advice. Factors that influenced behaviours included those self-controlled by farmers, e.g. records kept; outside of their control, e.g. space available, and those controlled by other actors, such as market prices. Considerations of the individual farm and the wider UK sheep sector context were important. Findings suggest a need for interventions aimed at encouraging good record-keeping, collective industry action against lameness and opportunities for vet-farmer interactions. These should be pursued together to achieve the goal of reducing lameness and subsequently improving sheep welfare.

Indexed as

Animal welfarebehaviour changecullingfarmersfive-point planlamenesssheepUK

Identifiers

PMID41769177
PMCPMC12936804

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.