To report, or not to report, animal abuse: the role of perceived self‐efficacy in veterinarians’ decision‐making

Abstract

BackgroundVeterinarians are on the frontline of animal welfare, but little is known about the factors that facilitate their decision to report cases of abuse to authorities. Using perceived self-efficacy as a basis, the primary aim of this study was to examine the psychological and experiential factors linked to veterinarians’ reporting behaviour.MethodsWe administered questionnaires to 176 veterinarians assessing the amount of training received on detecting/reporting animal abuse, perceived self-efficacy to report animal abuse, and whether they have reported animal abuse incidents to the relevant authorities.ResultsWe found that perceived self-efficacy positively correlated with suspecting and reporting animal abuse, number of hours of specialised training, and years working in practice. As hypothesised, we also found that perceived self-efficacy explained the relationship between specialised training (in hours) and reporting animal abuse.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the psychological impact of specialised training on veterinarians’ reporting behaviour. Simply put, specialist training equips veterinarians with the confidence and self-efficacy to report suspected cases of animal abuse. The implications for training curriculum and veterinary policy are discussed.

Recognising and reporting animal abuse

“…Alleyne and colleagues assessed the amount of specialist training participants received, their perceived self-eicacy to report animal abuse, and whether they had reported animal abuse incidents to the relevant authorities. 2 There is little UK-based research into animal abuse, and Alleyne and colleagues' study draws on examples of the factors that facilitate reporting of animal abuse in other countries -including the USA, New Zealand and Australia. However, it should be noted that mandated reporting varies in diferent areas or states.…”

“…In a paper summarised on p 538 of this issue of Vet Record, Alleyne and colleagues observe that animals, like children, are 'voiceless', thus placing responsibility on the veterinary surgeon to determine the cause of an injury. 2 In any efective consultation, comprehensive history taking will reveal the owner's perception or version of what is/are the cause(s) of the injury. However, it is easy for a busy vet or veterinary nurse to accept the owner's explanation at face value.…”

“…It takes skill and experience to determine whether the owner‐reported history of an injury is genuine, and the findings of Alleyne and colleagues indicate that specialised training enhances vets’ perceived self‐efficacy in recognising and reporting animal abuse 2 . To this end, almost all UK vet schools now hold LVTI training sessions – contributing to the growth in the number of well‐informed young vets.…”

Improve abuse reporting

“…I write having attended a harrowing, but excellent, talk at the London Vet Show on recognising the clinical and pathological signs of non‐accidental injury (NAI) in pets, and in response to the research paper by Alleyne and colleagues 1 and associated commentary 2 by Freda Scott‐Park of The Links Group.…”

“…With respect to the reporting of suspected NAI by vets, which Alleyne and colleagues paper states is influenced by self‐efficacy, years in practice and training, 1 I wonder whether a greater awareness and understanding of the lifelong human cost of abuse may help tip the balance in favour of reporting. In this context, suspected NAI in an animal reported to the authorities is a powerful tool to facilitate earlier identification, and intervention for all victims of abuse be they animals, children or vulnerable adults.…”