Assessment of an Educational Intervention on the Knowledge and Attitudes of Indian National Veterinarians to Animal Welfare and Euthanasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The teaching of animal welfare in Indian veterinary education is limited. Current knowledge and attitudes to animal welfare and euthanasia, and the effect of a targeted educational intervention, were assessed in 84 Indian national and 49 non-Indian veterinarians attending a 2-week training course run by the Worldwide Veterinary Service in Tamil Nadu. A pre-intervention questionnaire, comprising knowledge and attitude questions on animal welfare and ethical issues, was completed. Fifteen students were then retained as a control group. The intervention group was exposed to a predesigned lecture and case studies (day 6). At the end of the course (day 12), another identical questionnaire was completed. Initially, there was no difference in knowledge of the control or intervention groups of Indian participants. Overall knowledge scores were lower in Indian participants compared with non-Indian participants ( p < 0.05). Both groups’ scores increased after the course ( p < 0.05), with the Indian participants improving the most. Indian participants’ attitudes were supportive of animal welfare and euthanasia prior to the intervention. Improvements in scores, with some reaching significance ( p < 0.05), were observed post-intervention. Non-Indian participants’ attitudes were more supportive of animal welfare and euthanasia with strongly agree/ strongly disagree chosen more frequently than Indian responses. Both groups’ self-assessment of their understanding of these topics improved post-intervention ( p < 0.01). No prominent differences were found in questionnaire responses in the control cohort. This study shows that a targeted educational intervention impacts on Indian veterinarians’ knowledge and attitudes toward animal welfare and euthanasia, and is relevant to organizations aiming to improve animal welfare standards in India.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".