Search

Simple Summary: Assessing the quality of life (QOL) in dogs is difficult but formal assessment tools exist, often in the form of owner-completed questionnaires. Use of these tools in veterinary practice has been recommended by various veterinary associations. This study investigated current awareness and use of canine QOL assessment tools in veterinary practice in the UK. An online survey was completed by 90 veterinary surgeons and 20 veterinary nurses. One third were aware of the existence of canine QOL assessment tools, but less than four percent were using one in practice. Most vets and nurses were willing to use one as a tool, but reported that lack of time and potential resistance from owners were barriers to use. Results suggest that QOL assessment tools developed by researchers are not well distributed to veterinary professionals, and that several barriers inhibit their use. The use of formal canine quality of life (QOL) assessment tools in veterinary practice has been recommended. An online survey investigated awareness, use and barriers to use of these tools in the UK. An anonymous 24-question survey was advertised through veterinary groups and social media. Ninety veterinary surgeons and twenty veterinary nurses responded. Thirty-two respondents (29.1%) were aware of the existence of formal canine QOL assessment tools. Of the three tools listed, current use was less than four per cent. No statistically significant influence of respondent age, role (veterinary surgeon or nurse) or possession of additional qualifications was found on the awareness of QOL tools (p > 0.05). Over half of respondents (55.5%) would 'certainly' or 'probably' be willing to use a QOL assessment tool. The main barrier to use was lack of time. Other barriers included a perceived resistance from owners. Although current use and awareness of canine QOL assessment tools in UK veterinary practice is low, veterinary professionals appear willing to use the tools within their daily practice. This discrepancy implies that QOL assessment tools are not well disseminated to veterinary surgeons and nurses in practice and that various barriers inhibit their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Formal tools are available to aid veterinary assessment of canine quality of life. However, they are rarely applied in practice, and previous research suggests a veterinary perception of owner resistance to their use. Through an online questionnaire, we found that almost all UK dog owners (95.8%) were comfortable discussing their dogs' quality of life with their vets, yet only a third of owners (32%) reported this topic to have been raised by their vets. Furthermore, the majority of owners (70.8%) were interested in accessing tools to assess their dog's quality of life, but very few had experienced any form of formal health or well-being assessment tool (4.4%) with their vets. A subset of owners was interviewed about their experiences with such tools, and three main themes were generated from their feedback: 'Use of assessment tools supports client-vet relationship and empowers owners', 'owners want to talk about holistic dog care', and 'owner feelings on the wider application of assessment tools'. Overarching findings suggest that owners want to discuss QOL and are interested in using formal assessment tools. Indeed, the uptake of tools appears to be valuable in improving the vet-client relationship and owner confidence in the treatment of their dogs. Few veterinary professionals use formal quality of life (QOL) assessment tools despite their recommendation from veterinary governing bodies to enable holistic welfare assessments and target welfare improvement strategies. Perceived barriers include resistance from owners, and this study aimed to elucidate understanding of dog owner engagement with conversations and tools relating to QOL. An online survey that investigated owner experience, comfort, and opinions about vet-client discussions on topics connected to canine health and well-being, including QOL, was completed by 410 owners. Almost all owners (95.8%) were reportedly comfortable discussing QOL, yet only 32% reported their vets had addressed it. A high proportion of owners (70.8%) expressed interest in assessment tools, but only 4.4% had experienced one, none of which were QOL tools per se. Semi-structured interviews of a sub-set of four owners provided a more in-depth examination of their experience of a health and well-being assessment tool. Thematic analysis generated three themes: 'Use of assessment tools supports client-vet relationship and empowers owners', 'Owners want to talk about holistic dog care', and 'Owner feelings on the wider application of assessment tools'. Overall, our findings suggest that owners want to broaden the veterinary consultation conversation to discuss QOL and are interested in using tools, and therefore veterinary perceptions of owner-related barriers to tool application appear unfounded. Indeed, tool uptake appears to improve the vet-client relationship and boost owner confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current food system in England promotes a population diet that is high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). To address this, the UK government has implemented legislation to restrict the promotion of HFSS products in prominent locations (e.g. store entrances, checkouts) in qualifying retailers since October 2022. This study investigated the perceived impact of the legislation for affected stakeholders. Methods: A pre-implementation rapid qualitative evaluation of stakeholder interviews. One hundred eight UK stakeholders participated in the study including 34 consumers, 24 manufacturers and retailers, 22 local authority enforcement officers and 28 academic and charitable health representatives. A participatory conference was used to enable policy recommendations to be confirmed by stakeholders. Results: Stakeholders perceived the legislation to be a 'good first step' towards improving population diet but recognised this needed to be considered amongst a range of long-term obesity policies. Areas of further support were identified and these are presented as six recommendations for government to support the successful implementation of the legislation: (1) provide a free central HFSS calculator, (2) refine legislation to enhance intent and clarity, (3) conduct a robust evaluation to assess intended and unintended outcomes, (4) provide greater support for smaller businesses, (5) provide ring-fenced resources to local authorities and (6) create and communicate a long-term roadmap for food and health. Conclusions: This legislation has the potential to reduce impulse HFSS purchases and makes a solid start towards creating healthier retail outlets for consumers. Immediate government actions to create a freely accessible HFSS calculator, support smaller businesses and provide additional resources to local authorities would support successful implementation and enforcement. Independent evaluation of the implementation of the legislation will enable monitoring of potential unintended consequences identified in this study and support refinement of the legislation. A long-term roadmap is necessary to outline strategies to support equal access to healthier and sustainable food across the whole food system within the next 20–30 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laboratory animal science represents a challenging and controversial form of human-animal relations because its practice involves the deliberate and inadvertent harming and killing of animals. Consequently, animal research has formed the focus of intense ethical concern and regulation within the UK, in order to minimize the suffering and pain experienced by those animals whose living bodies model human diseases amongst other things. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians (ATs) in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, plus insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare. In our analysis, we examine four key dimensions of care work in laboratory animal research: (i) the specific skills and sensitivities required; (ii) the role of previous experiences of animal care; (iii) the influence of institutional and affective environments and (iv) experiences of killing. We propose that different notions of care are enacted alongside, not only permitted levels of harm inflicted on research animals following research protocols, but also harms to ATs in the processes of caring and killing animals. Concluding, we argue for greater articulation of the coexistence of care and harms across debates in geography about care and human-animal relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If a laboratory animal survives an experiment without lasting compromised welfare, its future must be negotiated. Rehoming may be a consideration. This paper reports on research findings that provide an indication of the uptake of animal rehoming by UK facilities and the associated moral, ethical, practical and regulatory considerations that inform decisions to rehome or not. This research addresses a widely acknowledged gap in the literature to understand both the numbers, and types of animals rehomed from UK research facilities, as well as the main motivations for engaging in the practice, and the barriers for those facilities not currently rehoming. From the ~160 UK research facilities in the UK, 41 facilities completed the questionnaire, giving a response rate of approximately 25%. Results suggest rehoming occurs routinely, yet the numbers are small; just 2322 animals are known to have been rehomed between 2015–2017. At least 1 in 10 facilities are rehoming. There exists a clear preference for the rehoming of some species (mainly cats, dogs and horses) over others (rodents, agricultural animals and primates). Indeed, although 94.15% of species kept in laboratories are rodents, they make up under a fifth (19.14%) of all animals known to be rehomed between 2015–2017. The primary motivation for rehoming is to boost staff morale and promote a positive ethical profile for the facility. Barriers include concern for the animal's welfare following rehoming, high scientific demand for animals that leaves few to be rehomed, and, finally, certain animals (mainly those genetically modified) are simply unsuited to rehoming. The findings of this research will support facilities choosing to rehome, as well as those that are not currently engaging in the practice. By promoting the practice, the benefits to rehoming in terms of improving laboratory animal's quality of life, helping facility staff to overcome the moral stress of killing, and addressing public concern regarding the fate of laboratory animals, can be attained. It is only once an understanding of rehoming from the perspective of UK research facilities has been ascertained, that appropriate policy and support can be provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving herd health and welfare improvement increasingly relies on cattle veterinarians to train and advise farmers, placing veterinary interactions at the heart of knowledge exchange. Cattle veterinarians recognize their influence and the need to be proactive advisors but struggle with acting upon this awareness in daily practice, reporting a need to enhance their advisory approach to inspire farmer behavior change. Understanding how veterinarian-farmer interactions positively or negatively influence the enactment of change on farm is therefore essential to support the cattle veterinary profession. This paper adopts a qualitative approach to conceptualize how and under what circumstances veterinary advice has the potential to support and inspire farmer engagement with behavior change on the UK dairy farm. Fourteen UK dairy farms were recruited to take part in a qualitative study involving research observation of a typical advisory consultation between veterinarian and farmer (n = 14) followed by separate, in-depth interviews with the farmer(s) and their respective veterinarian. Interview data were organized using a template coding method and analyzed thematically. While accuracy of veterinary advisory content was valued, it was a relational context of trust, shared veterinarian-farmer understanding, and meaningful interpretation of advice at a local (farmer) level that was most likely to enact change. Critically, these relational factors were reported to work together synergistically; a trusting relationship was an essential, but not necessarily sufficient, component to create a culture of change. Findings suggest that cattle veterinarians may benefit from tailoring advisory services to the farmer's specific world view, facilitated by a shared understanding of the farmer's immediate and long-term motivational drivers. In consequence, cattle veterinarians seeking to positively engage farmers in advisory interactions could consider a focus on farmer priorities, motivations, and goals as paramount to frame and inform advisory messages. This explicit collaborative communication encourages the selection of appropriate and timely veterinary expertise, leading to better integration and adoption of advice on farm given enhanced advisory relevance for farmers' unique circumstances. This farmer-centered approach, involving active co-creation of plans between individuals, is critical for engagement and commitment when tackling complex problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]