Three Things to Know
A previous study by the authors identified funding sources for canine welfare research. Building upon this, they sought to identify the most crucial dog welfare challenges in the UK requiring academic research and analyze existing funding gaps.
Through questionnaires and workshops with 59 canine welfare professionals, the researchers identified three key categories of concerns: canine health and welfare, research approaches and methodologies, and research processes and infrastructure. The study underscored the profound impact of human factors on dog welfare challenges in the UK.
The breeding and supply of dogs emerged as the most underfunded area. Other underfunded priorities included dog bite attacks and the affordability of veterinary care. There was also a critical lack of funding. Lastly, participants highlighted the need for improved collaboration among funding stakeholders.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners:
This study focused on identifying research needs to address major dog welfare challenges in the UK. However, several key issues identified, such as concerns about dog supply and the rising cost of veterinary care, align with the top dog welfare challenges in Ireland, as identified by Irish professionals in a separate study. This finding suggests that these are not just UK-specific issues, but rather, represent broader international concerns.
Beyond identifying key research topics and understanding funding gaps, this research provided a valuable platform for bringing together professionals from across the canine welfare sector to build consensus. This was exemplified by the finding that even veterinarians and charity workers, who might have been expected to oppose commercial breeding, recognized the need for ethical and high-welfare breeding practices to meet demand.
Dog welfare researchers and professionals from other affluent countries should consider conducting similar research to identify and build consensus around their own specific canine welfare research needs.
The Full Picture
Previous research identified £57.6 million of UK not-for-profit funding for canine health and welfare research between 2012 and 2022, providing insights into funding sources, amounts, and distribution. However, a strategic approach to allocating these funds is still lacking. This study, titled “Maybe we should think outside the box?” – Prioritization of issues with UK not-for-profit canine health and welfare research funding using Delphi expert consensus and gap analysis, aims to address this gap.
Building upon the previous work, this study conducted a two-phase investigation. In the first phase, the researchers used iterative group consultations to identify and prioritize critical issues in canine health and welfare research and its funding processes. In the second phase, the researchers compared these prioritized issues with the historical funding data. This analysis revealed critical gaps in funding allocation, highlighting underfunded high-priority topics.
The findings of this study provide the first evidence-based guidance for future prioritization of funding and infrastructure reforms within the UK’s canine health and welfare sector. By identifying critical gaps and high-priority areas, this research aims to optimize the allocation of limited resources to maximize benefits for dogs in the modern world.
Study Methods
This study involved participants representing diverse expertise in UK canine health and welfare. A two-phase approach, spanning over the second half of 2023, was used:
- Phase 1: An online questionnaire collected initial concerns and priorities.
- Phase 2: A total of seven in-person and online discussion groups refined and prioritized these concerns.
Pre-Workshop Questionnaire
The questionnaire responses generated 202 individual points of concern, which were grouped under umbrella topics and divided into four discussion parts:
- Dog welfare challenges in the UK and problems with the greatest negative impact on canine health
- Structural issues in UK canine health and welfare funding
- Changes needed in the allocation of research funding (underfunded and overfunded areas), and
- Improvements required in research funding to maximize positive impacts on canine welfare.
Group Workshop
A total of 59 participants attended the seven discussion groups. 102 issues of concern (50.5% of the original 202) were identified as the highest priorities, while the remaining 100 issues categorized as lower priorities.
Categorizing and Analyzing Funding Gap
The 102 highest-priority concerns (50.5%) were identified and further refined into three categories:
- Canine Health & Welfare (46 issues): both dog-facing problems, such as emerging diseases, and human factors, such as cost-of-living crisis.
- Research Approaches & Methodologies (23 issues): Prospective studies and social science research.
- Research Processes & Infrastructure (33 issues): Support for early-career researchers, funding transparency.
These prioritized areas were then compared with historical funding data to identify underfunded areas and inform future funding strategies.
Study Results
1. Canine Health & Welfare
Researchers categorized the 46 identified dog welfare challenges under Canine Health & Welfare into eight problem categories: canine behavior, ownership issues, societal concerns, breeding and supply challenges, breed-related diseases, importation issues, clinical practice, and shelter welfare.
Highest Priority Concerns
A key finding was the central role of human-canine interactions. Participants highlighted how human behaviors create dog welfare challenges in the UK. This is evident in issues like the human impact on canine health. While 9 out of 27 top-priority issues involve physical diseases, many, such as “which breeders produce healthier dogs,” emphasize how human choices influence these conditions, rather than focusing solely on clinical aspects. This underscores the crucial need for research funders to prioritize research that investigates how human factors affect canine well-being.
Participants also identified contemporary concerns, such as imported dog welfare, conformation-related diseases, and the impact of the rising cost of living, as priorities. Notably, even among those who might oppose commercial breeding, such as charity workers and veterinarians, there was consensus on the need for ethical, high-welfare breeding practices to meet demand.
Funding Gap
This study identified key areas where canine health and welfare research funding should be increased. A major focus was on the breeding and supply of dogs, with six of the twelve “most underfunded” topics falling within this category. These included improving the supply of healthy, well-bred dogs, educating potential puppy buyers, addressing the demand for dogs with extreme physical traits, regulating breeding practices, combating online puppy sales, and tackling exploitative breeding. Related concerns, such as the welfare of imported dogs and the impact of social media on dog ownership, were also highlighted.
Other underfunded priorities included dog bite attacks and the affordability of veterinary care, both of which were significant dog welfare challenges in the UK during the study period. Additionally, the study highlighted the need for more research on how human lifestyles affect dog behavior, even though some funding had already been allocated to this area.
The analysis also revealed significant gaps in research funding for common canine health issues. While some conditions, such as overgrown nails, are relatively easy to manage, others, like patellar luxation, anal sac disease, and periodontal disease, remain underfunded despite their prevalence and impact on dog welfare. Notably, periodontal disease, widely recognized as the most common and undertreated health problem in companion animals, received significantly less funding than warranted, emphasizing the need for targeted research to improve outcomes.
Funding Sources
UK canine health and welfare researchers primarily rely on two main funding sources: wide-scope funders (like the UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust), and animal-directed funders. Analyzing funding patterns revealed significant disparities. While wide-scope funders provide larger grants, their focus often lies on clinical diseases and issues related to dog imports. In fact, a substantial majority (74.1%) of the identified research priorities received no funding from these wide-scope sources between 2012 and 2022. Conversely, animal-directed funders supported a wider range of research areas, dominating funding in six out of eight categories.
A particularly concerning finding was that four critical areas received absolutely no direct funding from either source: the impact of social media and popular culture on dogs, exploitative breeding practices for profit, increasing the supply of healthy, well-bred dogs, and effective regulation and enforcement of breeding practices. These gaps may be attributed to several factors, including the novelty and complexity of these research areas, the challenges associated with developing suitable research methodologies, and, ultimately, the limited funding available for canine health and welfare research.
2. Research Approaches & Methodologies
Researchers classified the twenty-three high-priority points concerning research approaches into three categories: research design, investigative approach, and research engagement.
Workshop participants prioritized changes in research design, investigative approaches, and engagement to enhance real-world impact. Key priorities included integrating human behavioral change, designing research to address sector needs and improve welfare, and employing underutilized methods such as prospective studies and randomized controlled trials. Workshop participants also deemed effective public engagement to communicate research outputs to be essential.
The findings underscore the need for funders to prioritize real-world canine welfare concerns and utilize standardized tools to assess research proposals. This would help mitigate biases and ensure effective resource allocation, especially for challenging but crucial research areas.
3. Research Processes & Infrastructure
Analysis of 33 high-priority points concerning research processes and infrastructure revealed a critical lack of overall funding as the most pressing concern. Other key concerns included inadequate support for early-career researchers and a need for greater transparency and collaboration within the sector. Notably, eight out of 15 high-priority points emphasized the importance of improving transparency and fostering partnerships to address systemic challenges in research funding and execution.
These findings underscore the urgent need for targeted funding reallocation, innovative research approaches, and significant structural reforms to effectively address the identified gaps in canine health and welfare research.
Conclusion
This study focused on UK-specific issues, such as diseases linked to dog imports and problems within the breeding and supply chain. Similar concerns are likely relevant to affluent regions like Western Europe and North America, where dog ownership patterns mirror those observed in the UK.
Overall, the study identified critical areas within canine health and welfare that require increased funding. These areas particularly emphasize the complex human-canine relationship, the need for improved communication and collaboration among stakeholders, and the importance of conducting practical, real-world research with direct impact.
Funders can use these findings to better allocate their resources in order to tackle dog welfare challenges in the UK. A subsequent report will further explore these findings and offer specific strategies for sector reform.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Overview > Canine Welfare Challenges
Year of Publication:
2024
External Link:
Skipper AM, Packer RMA, O’Neill DG (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 19(12): e0313735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313735