Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23335839›Full record

ArticleCritical public health2012

Complaints about dog faeces as a symbolic representation of incivility in London, UK: a qualitative study.

Jane Derges, Rebecca Lynch, Angela Clow, Mark Petticrew, Alizon Draper

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Supportive neighbourhood built characteristics and dog-walking in Canadian adults.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jane DergesSchool of Life Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK.
Rebecca Lynch
Angela Clow
Mark Petticrew
Alizon Draper
University of Westminster · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During a 'Well London' study, residents were asked about their neighbourhood and its environment. Above all other complaints, 'dog poo' was mentioned as a key concern. Despite low rates of infection and disease among the human population resulting from contact with canine faecal matter, the concerns of the public continue to rate it as a serious public health issue. Most public health studies, therefore, seek to identify processes of transmission and disease pathology as a method of addressing the problem. This study approaches the issue through a contextualised analysis of residents' complaints, using anthropological theory to examine the symbolic representation of 'dog poo'. Analysis of the interviews shows that these specific complaints were located among less easily defined or articulated experiences of social and environmental neglect, where neighbours were estranged from one another and local authorities seen as negligent. This approach has important implications for public health, as it provides not only a strong indicator of the level of dissatisfaction within some of London's more disadvantaged neighbourhoods, but also identifies a need for policies that are grounded in cross-disciplinary research into the relationship between health, 'wellbeing' and experiences of marginalisation among urban populations.

Identifiers

PMID23335839
PMCPMC3545484
OpenAlexW2110223453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.