ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2026
Animal disability and welfare: Prevalence, perception, and practice in zoological organisations.
Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on animal disability (defined here as the loss of a critical adaptation that impacts the animal's stability, mobility, typical behaviour, or perception) remains limited, often focusing on individual case studies or a narrow range of taxa, particularly mammals. This reflects broader taxonomic biases in behaviour and welfare sciences, which may contribute to differences in the care and management of disabilities across species in human care. Zoological organisations offer an ideal opportunity to research animal disability, yet the prevalence of disability and related care practices has not been previously documented. To address this, a survey was shared with organisations accredited through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) to assess the prevalence and taxa of animals with disabilities, explore care staff perceptions of disabled animal welfare, and document modifications provided to animals with disabilities. There were 115 respondents, representing 45 organisations (approximately 19% of AZA-accredited organisations). All but one organisation (98% of organisations surveyed) reported having an animal with a disability in their care, suggesting that animals with disabilities may be common in zoological organisations. Animals with disabilities were reported from all vertebrate groups as well as arachnids, insects, and other invertebrates. Birds, mammals, and reptiles were the most likely to receive care and management modifications for their disability. Animal care staff perceived the welfare of animals with disabilities as similar to animals without disabilities. These data can serve as a foundation for future research on animal disability that can inform strategies to enhance welfare for animals in human care.
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.