Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42427980›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

Reconciling the business-care paradox: a Q study of veterinarians' professional identity formation.

Qianwen Joyce Yu, Si-Jia Sun

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. 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.

Qianwen Joyce YuSchool of International Studies, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Si-Jia SunDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Veterinary medicine is shaped by the business-care paradox, a persistent tension between commercial sustainability and ethical care commitments. Emotional labor is central to how practitioners navigate this paradox, yet the subjective processes through which they construct and sustain professional identity amid these competing demands have received little empirical attention from a subjectivity standpoint. Existing studies illuminate how emotions mediate this paradox yet stop short of examining the distinct identity pathways that practitioners adopt. Methods: Employing Q-methodology, 30 small-animal veterinarians in employee roles across private practices in southeastern China sorted 42 statements. The statements were developed around four core mechanisms of emotion-mediated paradox navigation: emotional salience, flexible emotional labor, emotional traces, and ongoing learning. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation identified shared subjectivity patterns, while semi-structured post-sorting interviews elicited rationales for extreme placements, strengthening interpretive validity. Results: A three-factor solution explained 58% of variance, revealing three distinct identity trajectories. The Discussion: The findings reveal three distinct modes of emotional labor engagement, each reflecting a different pathway of professional identity construction. For veterinary educators, these findings highlight the need for differentiated support strategies, each tailored to a distinct identity trajectory. Spanning moral distress mitigation to resilience cultivation, such strategies are essential for sustaining both practitioner wellbeing and care quality.

Indexed as

emotional laborparadoxprofessional identityveterinary educationveterinary medicine

Identifiers

PMID42427980
PMCPMC13345845

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.