ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Insights into the influence of dog and guardian demographics, nutrition, and relationship on raw feeding practices.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Raw meat-based diets (RMBD) are increasingly popular among dog guardians, yet the role of personal nutrition habits and pet-guardian relationships in their adoption remains unclear. This study examines how these factors, alongside previously identified drivers of pet food selection, specifically relate to the decision to feed RMBD. Methods: Data from 433 dog guardians were collected via an e-survey, from which 46 questions were selected for analysis in this study. Participants were placed into raw or cooked groups based on their dogs' primary diet. Responses were assessed using descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regression. Results: A cooked diet was the primary feeding method for 291 participants, while 142 reported providing a diet that included at least one raw element. Households with an income exceeding CA $100,000 were predictive of raw feeding, while possession of graduate education was protective against it. Intact dogs of medium size were also associated with raw feeding practices. Compared to supermarkets and veterinary clinics, pet specialty stores were significantly more likely to be used by raw feeders for pet food purchases. Additionally, the provision of supplements to ensure dietary balance was linked to raw feeders, with the inclusion of fish oil increasing the odds of feeding RMBD. Raw feeding was also associated with greater perceived knowledge of canine nutrition and a preference for minimally processed pet foods, whereas emphasis on the convenience or cost of feeding reduced the likelihood of adopting RMBD. Survey questions evaluating guardians' nutrition habits and perceived relationships with their pets did not predict diet group membership. Conclusion: Differences between raw feeders and guardians feeding cooked diets were observed in demographics (e.g., income and education), dog characteristics (e.g., breed size and sexual status), supplement use, pet food opinions and purchasing locations, and perceived dog nutrition knowledge. However, no differences were found in personal nutrition habits or the perceived human-animal bond.
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.