Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41938773›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

In their own words: qualitative interviews with veterinarians on handling decisions during dog examinations.

Lindsay Nakonechny, Katy Schroeder, Anastasia Chiara Stellato

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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

3 authors.

Lindsay NakonechnyDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.
Katy SchroederDepartment of Counselor Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.
Anastasia Chiara StellatoDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Routine veterinary visits can be a major source of fear and stress in dogs, creating welfare concerns and safety risks for veterinary teams and owners. Although stress-reducing practices have been widely promoted, limited research has examined how veterinarians describe their handling decisions and the factors that shape them in everyday practice. This qualitative study aimed to (1) explore how veterinarians in Canada and the United States conduct routine dog physical examinations; (2) identify clinic-, patient-, client-, and veterinarian-related factors, including professional well-being, that influence handling decisions; and (3) examine veterinarians' perceptions of stress-reducing practices, including perceived benefits and challenges. Methods: Virtual semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 17 veterinarians who provide clinical care to dogs between November 2024 and February 2025. Participants were recruited using snowball and convenience sampling. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis within an interpretivist paradigm. Results: Four major categories and 11 sub-categories emerged from the data: (1) approaches to dog handling; (2) factors affecting handling approaches; (3) veterinarian professional well-being; and (4) perceptions of stress-reducing practices. Discussion: Handling during routine dog physical examinations reflects negotiation between patient needs, safety, workplace constraints, and veterinarian wellbeing, with stress-reducing practices valued and utilized, yet not perceived to be uniformly feasible across situations. Clinic-level support (team training, supportive management, scheduling) and attention to veterinarians' professional well-being may promote more consistent use of stress-reducing handling, improving dog welfare, safety, and owner experiences.

Indexed as

clinical practicehandling decisionsprofessional wellbeingstress-reducing practicesveterinary perceptions

Identifiers

PMID41938773
PMCPMC13046485

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.