Search

Background: There are a number of different methods that can be used when estimating the size of the owned cat and dog population in a region, leading to varying population estimates. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the methods that have been used for estimating the sizes of owned cat and dog populations and to assess the biases associated with those methods.A comprehensive, systematic search of seven electronic bibliographic databases and the Google search engine was carried out using a range of different search terms for cats, dogs and population. The inclusion criteria were that the studies had involved owned or pet domestic dogs and/or cats, provided an estimate of the size of the owned dog or cat population, collected raw data on dog and cat ownership, and analysed primary data. Data relating to study methodology were extracted and assessed for biases., Results: Seven papers were included in the final analysis. Collection methods used to select participants in the included studies were: mailed surveys using a commercial list of contacts, door to door surveys, random digit dialled telephone surveys, and randomised telephone surveys using a commercial list of numbers. Analytical and statistical methods used to estimate the pet population size were: mean number of dogs/cats per household multiplied by the number of households in an area, human density multiplied by number of dogs per human, and calculations using predictors of pet ownership., Conclusion: The main biases of the studies included selection bias, non-response bias, measurement bias and biases associated with length of sampling time. Careful design and planning of studies is a necessity before executing a study to estimate pet populations.

Background: The population of dogs and cats passing through rescue shelters may be subject to compromised welfare and increased susceptibility to disease. Little information exists to describe this population, its dynamics and associated management practices. The aim of this study was to carry out a census of un-owned cats and dogs in the UK in 2010, and to document the origins, destinations, husbandry and costs associated with the care of these animals., Results: A sampling frame was constructed by searching the databases of publicly registered charities for England, Scotland and Wales, registers of breed rescues, and by internet searches of animal welfare websites. Overall, 2,352 contacts for 1,380 organisations were identified. All were sent a postal questionnaire asking for data on the number of dogs and cats housed, their origins and eventual outcomes, and details of husbandry between January 1st and December 31st 2010. For those which were registered charities (595), financial records were also obtained.A response rate of 38.8% was obtained. Overall, in 2010, 89,571 dogs and 156,826 cats entered the care of the participating organisations. Approximately half of these animals were relinquished by their owners. Other origins included being found as strays or confiscated for welfare purposes. Seventy-five per cent of dogs and 77.1% of cats were rehomed. The next most common outcome was euthanasia, accounting for 10.4% of dogs and 13.2% cats. For dogs and cats, 44.3% and 62% of participants respectively reported having a waiting list, which frequently exceeded the actual capacity of the facility. Over 19,000 people were involved in the care of these animals, on a paid or voluntary basis. Financial records were available for 519/595 (87.2%) of the registered charities, and their total expenditure in 2010 was £340 million., Conclusions: This study showed that a large number of animals become un-owned each year, which could have considerable implications for their welfare. Despite the resources expended, demand still exceeds capacity for many organisations, and a substantial number of both cats and dogs are euthanased, suggesting that further understanding of how and why these animals become un-owned is essential in order to target interventions.

Background: Pet ownership is common among homeless people, with dogs the most frequently reported pets. However, homeless people receive considerable criticism for keeping pets due to public perception of poor care provision. Materials and methods: A convenience, cross‐sectional sample of 19 homeless people, owning a total of 21 dogs were recruited, and their dogs' health and wellbeing assessed using the PDSA Petwise MOT (P‐MOT). Results: The dogs compared favourably with conventionally owned pets in most areas, including exercise and companionship. Problems included being overweight/obese (although at lower prevalence than the general population). Some owners had difficulty in accessing veterinary care. Behavioural concerns were reported for 61.9% of the dogs, most commonly separation‐related distress. Discussion: Being unable to safely leave their pets may impair owners' access to services. Provision of accessible veterinary care, behavioural support and pet‐friendly services could improve the health of homeless owners and their pets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pets provide companionship and social facilitation among excluded populations, including homeless people. However, having a pet may restrict access to services, including accommodation. The aims of this study were to assess pet provision among homelessness accommodation providers, and to assess reasons for pet provision or exclusion. An online survey consisting of multiple choice questions and free text boxes was distributed to a UK-wide sampling frame of homelessness service providers in July 2016. Of 523 contacts, 117 replied (response rate 22.4%). Of the respondents, 36.8% (43/117) provided services to pets. In contrast, 76.9% (90/117) reported having requests to accommodate pets. Common reasons for choosing to accept pets included perceived benefit to the owner (36/43, 83.7%) or animal (25/43, 58.1%). Most organizations which allowed pets (35/43, 81.4%) had a policy to ensure the animals' welfare and restrict damage or nuisance. Of the 74 organizations which did not allow pets, health and safety of staff and other residents were the most common concerns. This study shows that demand for pet-friendly accommodation for homeless people far outstrips supply. In view of the important role that pets play for these vulnerable people, homelessness service providers should be encouraged and assisted to accommodate pets where feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current recommendations for the elimination of canine-mediated human rabies focus on mass dog vaccination as the most feasible and cost-effective strategy. However, attempts to control rabies are often combined with canine surgical sterilisation programmes. The added value of sterilisation is widely debated. A systematic review was undertaken to compare the outcomes and impact of vaccination and sterilisation programmes with vaccination only programmes. A systematic search of three electronic databases (CAB Abstracts, Medline and Global Health) and grey literature was performed. From 8696 abstracts found, 5554 unique studies were identified, and 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight described vaccination only programmes and eight described vaccination and sterilisation programmes. Indicators of impact measured were dog bites and/or doses of post-exposure prophylaxis administered; numbers of dog and/or human rabies cases; dog population demographic changes; changes in health and welfare of dogs, and indicators related to human behaviour change. The studies were contextually very diverse, programmes being implemented were complex, and there was variation in measurement and reporting of key indicators. Therefore, it was difficult to compare the two types of intervention, and impossible to make an evaluation of the role of sterilisation, using this evidence. Given the large number of vaccination and sterilisation programmes conducted globally, the lack of studies available for review highlights a gap in data collection or reporting, essential for impact assessment. There are several knowledge gaps concerning the impact of the sterilisation component alone, as well as subsequent effects on rabies transmission and control. Prospective studies comparing the outcomes and impact of the two interventions would be required in order to establish any additional contribution of sterilisation, as well as the underlying mechanisms driving any changes. In the absence of such evidence, the priority for rabies control objectives should be implementation of mass vaccination, as currently recommended by the World Health Organisation. Author summary: Rabies is an important viral zoonosis that causes approximately 59,000 human deaths every year. The vast majority of cases result from a bite from an infected dog. Annual vaccination of at least 70% of the dog population is recommended for elimination of canine rabies. Canine surgical sterilisation programmes are sometimes conducted alongside rabies vaccination. However the contribution of sterilisation to rabies control, above that of the vaccination alone, is controversial. This systematic review compared the outcomes and impacts of vaccination and sterilisation programmes with vaccination only programmes. Sixteen studies met the study's formal inclusion criteria, however we were unable to answer the question using this evidence and the role of sterilisation remains unclear. We identify gaps in knowledge regarding the implementation and impact of the sterilisation component as well as any resulting effects on rabies transmission and control. Prospective studies evaluating the two types of intervention would provide comparative evidence, which is needed to enable informed decisions to be made regarding whether sterilisation should be conducted for the purposes of canine rabies control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Surgical sterilisation is a component of free-roaming dog population management programmes worldwide. However, evidence of the population-level impacts of sterilisation are rarely reported in peer-reviewed literature. Using a priority setting partnership process, we identified the most important unanswered questions concerning these impacts from the perspective of those working with free-roaming dogs. We found that there were many uncertainties surrounding the impacts of such programmes, and how they can be achieved. The top 10 priorities were related to changes in dog population dynamics; risks to human health; human perception and behaviour towards dogs; and logistics related to implementation in the field. Addressing these priorities will enable a more comprehensive understanding of if, how, and why canine surgical sterilisation programmes impact on free-roaming dog populations. Surgical sterilisation is a core activity of free-roaming dog population management (DPM) programmes globally. However, there is limited published evidence on its impact at the population level. To support evidence-based decision making in this field, it is important that research conducted is relevant to those involved in working with free-roaming dogs and implementing such programmes. The aim of this study was to adapt the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach to systematically identify the top 10 research priorities regarding the impact of canine sterilisation. International stakeholders with experience working in DPM were asked in an online survey what unanswered questions they had regarding the impact of sterilisation programmes. Thematic analysis of survey responses was used to develop a long list of collated indicative research questions (CIRQs). A literature review was performed to identify questions that were 'true uncertainties' (had not been answered by evidence review). These questions were reduced to a shortlist via an online interim prioritisation survey, and a Delphi consensus process determined the top 10 priorities. The top 10 questions related to dog population size and turnover, dog bite incidents, rabies control, implementation in the field and human behaviour change. These priorities were identified and shaped by people with direct experience of canine surgical sterilisation programmes, and as such are an essential resource for directing future funding and research. Addressing these priorities will generate evidence that is directly applicable to policy makers and practitioners who make decisions regarding the management of free-roaming dogs (FRDs) worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]