Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2019 Jan:147:e247.
doi: 10.1017/S0950268819001158.

Estimating the effectiveness of vaccine programs in dog populations

R M Wallace  1 , E A Undurraga  1 , A Gibson  2 , J Boone  3 , E G Pieracci  1 , L Gamble  2 , J D Blanton  1
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Estimating the effectiveness of vaccine programs in dog populations

R M Wallace et al. Epidemiol Infect. 2019 Jan.

Abstract

Dogs harbor numerous zoonotic pathogens, many of which are controlled through vaccination programs. The delivery of these programs can be difficult where resources are limited. We developed a dynamic model to estimate vaccination coverage and cost-per-dog vaccinated. The model considers the main factors that affect vaccination programs: dog demographics, effectiveness of strategies, efficacy of interventions and cost. The model was evaluated on data from 18 vaccination programs representing eight countries. Sensitivity analysis was performed for dog confinement and vaccination strategies. The average difference between modelled vaccination coverage and field data was 3.8% (2.3%-5.3%). Central point vaccination was the most cost-effective vaccination strategy when >88% of the dog population was confined. More active methods of vaccination, such as door-to-door or capture-vaccinate-release, achieved higher vaccination coverage in free-roaming dog populations but were more costly. This open-access tool can aid in planning more efficient vaccination campaigns in countries with limited resources.

Keywords: Modelling; rabies (animal); vaccination (immunisation); zoonoses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
User-interface for planning dog vaccination campaigns.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Field-measured vaccination coverage compared to the model-derived estimated coverage among the free-roaming and total dog populations using respondent and GDREP-derived model input values.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Sensitivity analysis showing the impact of dog confinement on expected vaccination coverage and cost-per-dog-vaccinated by three vaccination strategies.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Sensitivity analysis showing the impact on cost per marginal increase in vaccination coverage as vaccines are transitioned from CP to CVR and ORV strategies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Montagu MF (1942) On the origin of the domestication of the dog. Science 96, 111–112. - PubMed
    1. Ovodov ND et al. (2011) A 33,000-year-old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS One 6, e22821. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chomel BB (2014) Emerging and re-emerging zoonoses of dogs and cats. Animals (Basel) 4, 434–445. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fahrion AS et al. (2017) The road to dog rabies control and elimination-what keeps us from moving faster? Frontiers in Public Health 5, 103. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hampson K et al. (2015) Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9, e0003709. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances