Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41811793›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Abuse recognition by shelter staff and shelter animal adopters.

Ineke R van Herwijnen, Nadieh Reinders, Esmee M Bus, Claudia M Vinke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

4 authors.

Ineke R van HerwijnenDivision of Animals in Science and Society, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0824-8089
Nadieh ReindersDivision of Animals in Science and Society, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4039-6291
Esmee M BusDivision of Animals in Science and Society, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Claudia M VinkeDivision of Animals in Science and Society, Department of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3271-6535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science has provided insight into the physical signs of animal abuse, such as the presence of fractures in different healing stages. Possible behavioural signs of animal abuse are understudied. In studies on child abuse, behavioural signs have been identified. We aimed to study if similar signs would be viewed as relevant signs of animal abuse, focussing on physical abuse of cats and dogs. We targeted shelter staff and shelter animal adopters, as these people may come in contact with abused animals, are known to be willing to participate in research and may do so without ethical constraints applying. We found that the behavioural signs based on child abuse studies, were deemed relevant for the assessment of animal abuse by the respondents in our small-scale study (N = 23 shelter staff and N = 132 shelter animal adopters). Behavioural signs of fear, such as fear of the owner, were deemed most relevant. Person-specific fear was indicated by shelter staff and shelter animal adopters as a more accurate indicator of animal abuse than aggression, problems with human-social bond formation and person-specific pleasing behaviour. This study held a limited number of respondents, but indicates a possible use of behavioural signs in studying animal abuse. To further assess the validity of animal behavioural signs as a source of animal abuse recognition, future studies will need to observe animals known to have previously suffered abuse. These studies should aim to use ethograms that include objective descriptions of behaviours that may be of interest to animal abuse experiences. Our study indicates that shelter animal staff and adopters may differ in their appraisal of behaviours other than fear, when assessing a likeliness of animal abuse. Studying such differences in larger samples may provide insight into how these populations assess an animal's possible abuse experience or lack thereof.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareBehavior, AnimalAggressionAnimalsCatsDogsFearFemaleHuman-Animal BondHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41811793
PMCPMC12978493

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.