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
. 2021 Jul 30;11(8):2250.
doi: 10.3390/ani11082250.

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

Abi Collinson  1 , Marnie L Brennan  1 , Rachel S Dean  2 , Jenny Stavisky  1
Affiliations

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

Abi Collinson et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: free-roaming dogs; impact; population management; research prioritisation; sterilisation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the 4 key stages of the James Lind Alliance methodology as applied to the Canine Surgical Sterilisation Priority Setting Partnership.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow diagram of prioritisation process and evolution of research questions from initial submissions to final prioritisation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM) Humane Dog Population Management Guidance: 2019 Update. [(accessed on 30 June 2021)];2019 Available online: https://www.icam-coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-ICAM-DPM-....
    1. Hiby E., Atema K.N., Brimley R., Hammond-Seaman A., Jones M., Rowan A., Fogelberg E., Kennedy M., Balaram D., Nel L. Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions. BMC Vet. Res. 2017;13:143. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith L.M., Hartmann S., Munteanu A.M., Dalla Villa P., Quinnell R.J., Collins L.M. The Effectiveness of Dog Population Management: A Systematic Review. Animals. 2019;9:1020. doi: 10.3390/ani9121020. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collinson A., Bennett M., Brennan M.L., Dean R.S., Stavisky J. Evaluating the role of surgical sterilisation in canine rabies control: A systematic review of impact and outcomes. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2020;14:e0008497. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008497. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Belsare A., Vanak A.T. Modelling the challenges of managing free-ranging dog populations. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:18874. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75828-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding