ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2017
Using Free Adoptions to Reduce Crowding and Euthanasia at Cat Shelters: An Australian Case Study.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations Between Adoption Discounts, Length-of-Stay, and Adoption Rates of Dogs in an Open-Admission Municipal Animal Shelter in NSW, Australia.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Intensive Adoption as a Management Strategy for Unowned, Urban Cats: A Case Study of 25 Years of Trap-Assess-Resolve (TAR) in Auckland, New Zealand.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Response to Wolf et al.: Furthering Debate over the Suitability of Trap-Neuter-Return for Stray Cat Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Pawsitively sad: pet-owners are more sensitive to negative emotion in animal distress vocalizations.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- A Case of Letting the Cat out of The Bag-Why Trap-Neuter-Return Is Not an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019Review
- Attitudes and Practices of Australian Veterinary Professionals and Students towards Early Age Desexing of Cats.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many healthy adult cats are euthanised annually in shelters, and novel approaches are required to reduce euthanasia rates. Waiving adoption fees is one such approach. However, concerns that less responsible owners will be attracted to free events persist among welfare groups. We evaluated evidence for differences in cat fate, health, and adherence to husbandry legislation via a case-study of a free adoption-drive for cats ≥1 year at a Western Australian shelter. Post-adoption outcomes were compared between free adopters and a control group of normal-fee adopters. The free adoption-drive rehomed 137 cats, increasing average weekly adoptions by 533%. First-time adopters were a significantly larger portion of the free cohort, as a result of mixed-media promotions. Both adopter groups selected cats of similar age; sex and pelage. Post-adoption, both groups retained >90% cats, reporting near identical incidences of medical and behavioural problems. Adopters did not differ in legislative compliance regarding fitting collars, registering cats, or allowing cats to roam. The shelter reported satisfaction with the adoption-drive, because in addition to relieving crowding of healthy adults, adoption of full-fee kittens increased 381%. Overall, we found no evidence for adverse outcomes associated with free adoptions. Shelters should not be dissuaded from occasional free adoption-drives during overflow periods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.