IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0313735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Maybe we should think outside the box?” prioritisation of issues with UK not-for-profit canine health and welfare research funding using Delphi expert consensus and gap analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Alison M Skipper
  • Rowena M A Packer
  • Dan G O’Neill

Abstract

Over fifty participants, who together possessed broad research, veterinary and front-line expertise from across the canine health and welfare sector, contributed to a modified Delphi study to identify the highest priority research topics in UK canine health and welfare, the highest priorities for future research approaches, and the highest priorities for future reform in research processes and infrastructure, through group consensus. Further analysis also compared the prioritisation of selected research topics to the actual levels of research funding they previously received, through comparison with historical data. Most of the identified highest priority issues relating to canine health and welfare and its research concerned various aspects of the human-canine relationship, such as ownership or behavioural issues. Participants strongly emphasised the complexity of interrelated factors that impact the welfare of both dogs and people. Research topics identified as previously ‘most underfunded’ all concerned real-world canine welfare issues, particularly emphasising the breeding and supply of dogs. A supplementary analysis of historical research funding (2012–2022) for common chronic disorders in primary care practice, another identified highest priority topic, identified periodontal disease, anal sac disorders, overgrown nails and patellar luxation as the ‘most underfunded’ conditions. Most of the identified highest priority research approaches and methodologies concerned real-world design and execution aspects of canine health and welfare research, such as impact and engagement, with a strong focus on research investigating the human factors in canine welfare. Aspects of research funding infrastructure that were considered highest priority for future change mostly concerned increased transparency of funding processes and increased collaboration between stakeholder groups throughout the funding sector, which was strongly supported. Overall, these findings emphasise the importance of considering and including human factors and real-world impact, where appropriate, as key elements for optimising the relevance of canine health and welfare research.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison M Skipper & Rowena M A Packer & Dan G O’Neill, 2024. "“Maybe we should think outside the box?” prioritisation of issues with UK not-for-profit canine health and welfare research funding using Delphi expert consensus and gap analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-34, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313735
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313735
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313735&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0313735?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0313735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.