Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact

Abstract

Dogs are important companions to people but can also present challenges to health and safety of communities if their populations are not effectively managed. Dog population management (DPM) is often undertaken by individual dog owners; however, some communities require additional DPM interventions, especially when veterinary services are unavailable or underutilised. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a DPM intervention conducted in 13 communities between September 2016 and November 2019 and assessed the utility of routinely collected data—program metrics and secondary data collected by local governments—to measure indicators of impacts. The intervention resulted in significant increases in the proportion of dogs presenting that were microchipped and surgically sterilised in participating communities. The intervention also resulted in significant reductions in dog attack incidents and euthanasia of dogs in council pounds in communities that participated for three or more years. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of DPM interventions is critical to determine if impacts are being achieved. This study demonstrates the potential benefits of a DPM intervention for community safety and dog welfare and highlights the utility of routinely collected data. We also suggest benchmarks for indicators of community engagement to guide planning and monitoring of similar interventions.

Systematic review of dog bite prevention strategies

“…Among the included studies, most were conducted in the Northern Hemisphere, with only three from Australia43–45 and one from NZ46 (online supplemental table 1). Study designs included 15 observational cohort studies46–59 and 27 interventional studies, 18 of which were predesign and postdesign with no control group,43 45 60–75 five non-randomised studies with a control group,44 76–79 three cross-over studies,56 61 80 and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) 81. One study had inadequate information given to determine the study design 65.…”

Priorities for Research into the Impact of Canine Surgical Sterilisation Programmes for Free-Roaming Dogs: An International Priority Setting Partnership

“…Prioritisation of these questions highlights the intended One Health impacts of these interventions, and recognition of the interconnections between dogs, humans and their shared environment [ 28 ]. Interventions that include sterilisation have previously been associated with reductions in dog bite incidence [ 29 , 30 ]. The inclusion of two questions related to rabies control suggests that this is a key goal for those conducting sterilisation programmes in rabies endemic areas, even where main motivations are in improving animal welfare.…”

Evaluating Impacts of a One Health Approach to Companion Animal Health and Management in a Remote Aboriginal Community in the Northern Territory, Australia

“…Multi-disciplinary approaches to designing, implementing, and evaluating programs and the ability to collect integrated household-level data on animal and human health simultaneously could assist with this [ 18 ]. Future studies could consider additional components and indicators to assess community engagement with the program and assess if the program is meeting community needs [ 32 ].…”