为什么英国有些人不愿意为他们的宠物寻求支持?

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Welfare Pub Date : 2024-05-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/awf.2024.19
Janine C Muldoon, Joanne M Williams
{"title":"为什么英国有些人不愿意为他们的宠物寻求支持?","authors":"Janine C Muldoon, Joanne M Williams","doi":"10.1017/awf.2024.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drawing upon data from a study examining experiences of accessing support for pets from the UK animal welfare charity Blue Cross, this paper illuminates reasons why people might not seek support when they need it. This applies to those who are struggling financially and are eligible for, but do not take, free/reduced cost veterinary care, or are having other problems (e.g. the animal's disruptive behaviour or ill health, struggling to care for the pet due to changing circumstances or health problems, or coping with pet loss). Twenty Blue Cross service users (15 female, five male, age 29-67) took part in individual online interviews using a semi-guided narrative approach, where they were encouraged to share their experiences of reaching out. They were also asked to reflect upon why others may not do the same, and if they had any recommendations for organisations to help them reach these people. Findings echo other studies that highlight a fear of being judged, disclosure and stigma. Guilt, shame, lack of awareness, financial concerns, and wanting to manage independently, all play important roles. These factors have implications for the way support services are advertised and delivered to ensure animals receive the care needed. We describe these reflections and recommendations and identify three broader ideological narratives underpinning participants' stories: 'giving back'; 'equity', and 'sacrifice'. These reveal how wider societal attitudes and values shape identities and behaviours. It is vital that support on offer is reframed to explicitly counteract these influences to ensure optimal animal and human welfare.</p>","PeriodicalId":7894,"journal":{"name":"Animal Welfare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11076913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?\",\"authors\":\"Janine C Muldoon, Joanne M Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/awf.2024.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Drawing upon data from a study examining experiences of accessing support for pets from the UK animal welfare charity Blue Cross, this paper illuminates reasons why people might not seek support when they need it. This applies to those who are struggling financially and are eligible for, but do not take, free/reduced cost veterinary care, or are having other problems (e.g. the animal's disruptive behaviour or ill health, struggling to care for the pet due to changing circumstances or health problems, or coping with pet loss). Twenty Blue Cross service users (15 female, five male, age 29-67) took part in individual online interviews using a semi-guided narrative approach, where they were encouraged to share their experiences of reaching out. They were also asked to reflect upon why others may not do the same, and if they had any recommendations for organisations to help them reach these people. Findings echo other studies that highlight a fear of being judged, disclosure and stigma. Guilt, shame, lack of awareness, financial concerns, and wanting to manage independently, all play important roles. These factors have implications for the way support services are advertised and delivered to ensure animals receive the care needed. We describe these reflections and recommendations and identify three broader ideological narratives underpinning participants' stories: 'giving back'; 'equity', and 'sacrifice'. These reveal how wider societal attitudes and values shape identities and behaviours. It is vital that support on offer is reframed to explicitly counteract these influences to ensure optimal animal and human welfare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11076913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Welfare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.19\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"VETERINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.19","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过对英国动物福利慈善机构蓝十字(Blue Cross)为宠物提供支持的经验的研究数据,揭示了人们在需要时不寻求支持的原因。这适用于那些经济拮据、有资格但没有接受免费/减免费用的兽医护理,或遇到其他问题(如动物的破坏性行为或健康状况不佳、因环境变化或健康问题而难以照顾宠物,或正在应对宠物丢失)的人。20 名蓝十字服务用户(15 名女性,5 名男性,年龄在 29-67 岁之间)参加了个人在线访谈,访谈采用半引导式叙事方法,鼓励他们分享伸出援手的经历。他们还被要求反思为什么其他人可能不会这样做,以及他们是否对机构有任何建议来帮助他们接触这些人。研究结果与其他研究结果一致,都强调了对被评判、披露和污名化的恐惧。内疚感、羞耻感、缺乏认识、经济顾虑以及希望独立管理等因素都起着重要作用。这些因素对宣传和提供支持服务的方式产生了影响,以确保动物得到所需的照顾。我们描述了这些反思和建议,并确定了参与者故事背后的三个更广泛的意识形态叙事:"回馈"、"公平 "和 "牺牲"。这揭示了更广泛的社会态度和价值观是如何塑造身份和行为的。至关重要的是,对所提供的支持进行重新规划,以明确抵消这些影响,从而确保动物和人类的最佳福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?

Drawing upon data from a study examining experiences of accessing support for pets from the UK animal welfare charity Blue Cross, this paper illuminates reasons why people might not seek support when they need it. This applies to those who are struggling financially and are eligible for, but do not take, free/reduced cost veterinary care, or are having other problems (e.g. the animal's disruptive behaviour or ill health, struggling to care for the pet due to changing circumstances or health problems, or coping with pet loss). Twenty Blue Cross service users (15 female, five male, age 29-67) took part in individual online interviews using a semi-guided narrative approach, where they were encouraged to share their experiences of reaching out. They were also asked to reflect upon why others may not do the same, and if they had any recommendations for organisations to help them reach these people. Findings echo other studies that highlight a fear of being judged, disclosure and stigma. Guilt, shame, lack of awareness, financial concerns, and wanting to manage independently, all play important roles. These factors have implications for the way support services are advertised and delivered to ensure animals receive the care needed. We describe these reflections and recommendations and identify three broader ideological narratives underpinning participants' stories: 'giving back'; 'equity', and 'sacrifice'. These reveal how wider societal attitudes and values shape identities and behaviours. It is vital that support on offer is reframed to explicitly counteract these influences to ensure optimal animal and human welfare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare 农林科学-动物学
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Animal Welfare is an international scientific and technical journal. It publishes the results of peer-reviewed scientific research, technical studies and reviews relating to the welfare of kept animals (eg on farms, in laboratories, zoos and as companions) and of those in the wild whose welfare is compromised by human activities. Papers on related ethical, social, and legal issues and interdisciplinary papers will also be considered for publication. Studies that are derivative or which replicate existing publications will only be considered if they are adequately justified. Papers will only be considered if they bring new knowledge (for research papers), new perspectives (for reviews) or develop new techniques. Papers must have the potential to improve animal welfare, and the way in which they achieve this, or are likely to do so, must be clearly specified in the section on Animal welfare implications.
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments. Human-animal interactions and machine-animal interactions in animals under human care: A summary of stakeholder and researcher perceptions and future directions. Does tail docking prevent Cochliomyia hominivorax myiasis in sheep? A six-year retrospective cohort study. Standard methods for marking caudate amphibians do not impair animal welfare over the short term: An experimental approach. Why are some people in the UK reluctant to seek support for their pets?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1