ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2026
'Helpful', 'Objective', and 'Useful': User Perceptions of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) for Dogs as a Decision-Making Tool.
Article in Veterinary medicine and 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEthical decision-making in veterinary practice and in animal welfare sectors can be particularly challenging. Decision-making is reported to be largely subjective with various influences biasing these decisions. To enhance the objectivity with ethical dilemmas and difficult decisions, the application of standardised tools is increasingly advocated. This study explores the utility of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) as a decision-making tool in various sectors of dog welfare including veterinary medicine, shelter environments, and assistance dog organisations.
methodsThis was undertaken through an online mixed-methods questionnaire of clinicians using the AWAG in their workplace to assess dogs. A total of 38 respondents from a group of 99 veterinary and animal welfare professionals provided insights on the tool's functionality.
resultsOver 96% of respondents acknowledge the utility of the AWAG in aiding in decision-making and it is reported to facilitate discussions among colleagues and dog caregivers about welfare. While the overall sentiment towards the AWAG was predominantly positive, a minority of users expressed difficulties in using the tool, indicating areas where the tool could be further refined and improved. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that the AWAG serves as a valuable asset for veterinary clinicians and animal welfare professionals, aiding in the assessment of dogs' welfare and informing treatment and management decisions. By providing an instrument to aid in objective reasoning to the complex process of decision-making, this may help transform how welfare considerations are integrated into daily practice.
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.