The primary analysis included 119 veterinary professionals who had practiced in Ukraine both before and after the invasion began. The most frequently reported changes were behavioral and psychological. Of 109 respondents answering the relevant items, 89.9 percent reported increases in noise-related fear or phobia, 88.1 percent reported anxiety or hypervigilance, and 86.8 percent reported separation-related distress in animals.

Physical and access-related harms were also common. Conflict-related injuries were reported by 69.9 percent of the 93 respondents addressing that question, financial constraints limiting veterinary care by 69.1 percent of 110, and delayed presentation of chronic disease by 64.9 percent of 111. The authors note that these patterns suggest welfare challenges are multidimensional, extending well beyond wounds caused directly by hostilities to include barriers that prevent animals from receiving timely care.

Geography mattered. Regional associations were identified for conflict-related injuries, roaming-related injuries, noise-related fear, separation-related distress and overall perceived welfare change. After adjusting for practice setting and species group, respondents in the Kyiv Region had higher odds of reporting worsened animal welfare than those in Central Ukraine, with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.29 and a p-value of 0.004.

The authors emphasize that these regional comparisons are exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. When asked what was driving the deterioration, respondents most often cited owner financial hardship, identified by 87.4 percent of the 119 participants, followed by displacement of people and animals at 61.3 percent and an increase in stray or abandoned animals at 58.0 percent. Sustaining veterinary services during armed conflict depends not only on supplies and infrastructure but on practitioners who are themselves living through the invasion, and the authors argue that supporting this workforce deserves greater attention.

Based on their findings, the researchers recommend maintaining access to veterinary care, supporting displaced animals and the veterinary workforce, and integrating animal welfare into humanitarian preparedness planning. They frame these as areas warranting greater attention rather than as evaluated interventions, since the study measured perceptions rather than testing specific programs. The authors are careful about the study's limits.

Sampling was non-probability based, meaning respondents may not represent all Ukrainian veterinary professionals; responses were retrospective perceptions rather than prospectively measured welfare outcomes; and the regional analyses were exploratory. The survey captures how experienced clinicians perceived change, which is a valuable but indirect measure of animal welfare on the ground.

Subject of Research: Perceived impacts of the war in Ukraine on animal welfare, as reported by veterinary professionals in a cross-sectional survey

Article Title: Beyond the battlefield: veterinary professionals reveal the hidden impact of Russia's full-scale invasion on animal welfare in Ukraine

Article References: Yustyniuk, V., Galaburda, M., Zhitnitskiy, P. E., Martyniuk, O., Melnyk, V., Valchuk, O., & Perez, A. M. (2026). Beyond the battlefield: veterinary professionals reveal the hidden impact of Russia's full-scale invasion on animal welfare in Ukraine. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 13, 1968453. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2026.1968453

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2026.1968453

Keywords: animal welfare, Ukraine, veterinary professionals, armed conflict, Five Domains Model, cross-sectional survey, displacement, access to veterinary care, conflict-related injuries, compassion fatigue, One Health, stray animals