‘Helpful’, ‘Objective’, and ‘Useful’: User Perceptions of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) for Dogs as a Decision‐Making Tool
Rachel Malkani, Sharmini Julita Paramasivam, Sarah WolfensohnABSTRACT
Objectives
Ethical decision‐making in veterinary practice and in animal welfare sectors can be particularly challenging. Decision‐making is reported to be largely subjective with various influences biasing these decisions. To enhance the objectivity with ethical dilemmas and difficult decisions, the application of standardised tools is increasingly advocated. This study explores the utility of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid (AWAG) as a decision‐making tool in various sectors of dog welfare including veterinary medicine, shelter environments, and assistance dog organisations.
Methods
This was undertaken through an online mixed‐methods questionnaire of clinicians using the AWAG in their workplace to assess dogs. A total of 38 respondents from a group of 99 veterinary and animal welfare professionals provided insights on the tool's functionality.
Results
Over 96% of respondents acknowledge the utility of the AWAG in aiding in decision‐making and it is reported to facilitate discussions among colleagues and dog caregivers about welfare. While the overall sentiment towards the AWAG was predominantly positive, a minority of users expressed difficulties in using the tool, indicating areas where the tool could be further refined and improved.
Clinical significance
The results suggest that the AWAG serves as a valuable asset for veterinary clinicians and animal welfare professionals, aiding in the assessment of dogs' welfare and informing treatment and management decisions. By providing an instrument to aid in objective reasoning to the complex process of decision‐making, this may help transform how welfare considerations are integrated into daily practice.