ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
A participatory rapid ethnographic assessment protocol for studying human-animal-material interactions in veterinary clinical practice.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Veterinary clinical practice involves complex interactions among clinicians, learners, clients, animals, material objects, and built environments. These interactions shape how care is delivered, how students learn, and how practitioners respond to changing circumstances in real time. However, existing qualitative and ethnographic methods often lack a replicable protocol for capturing how human, animal, and material contributions jointly shape clinical practice as it unfolds. This methodology article presents a participatory Rapid Ethnographic Assessment protocol designed for veterinary educators, practitioners, and researchers who seek to study, teach, and improve context-sensitive clinical practice in interspecies settings. The protocol details the epistemological and philosophical implications of a two-camera audiovisual data collection strategy: one camera records naturally occurring clinical interactions for later research analysis, while a second assessment camera captures interactional sequences that can be rapidly replayed to participants for reflection and coaching. The method proceeds through four stages: identifying candidate sequences of practice, conducting participatory interactional sense- and meaning-making, organizing paired assessment and research recordings for close analysis, and interpreting selected sequences using relevant clinical, educational, organizational, or social science theory. The protocol is illustrated through an example from mobile veterinary care in which a dog treat, clinician, client, patient, and technician collectively contribute to redirecting an interaction and enabling care to proceed. Anticipated outputs include participant-validated interactional data, teachable examples of clinical and leadership practice, context-specific quality improvement insights, and evidence that can inform veterinary education and One Welfare-oriented outreach. The article details required materials, step-by-step procedures, timing, pause points, anticipated results, limitations, pitfalls, and troubleshooting strategies. By making human-animal-material interactions visible and analyzable, this methodological protocol offers a practical method for studying and improving clinical practice in veterinary humanities, social science, and community-engaged veterinary research.
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.