ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Animal hoarding cases in England: Implications for public health services.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Operational Protocol for Animal Hoarding: A Conceptual Proposal Based on Multidisciplinary Field Experience.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Challenges in Sheltering Seized Animals from Hoarders from a One Welfare Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Description of Twenty-Nine Animal Hoarding Cases in Italy: The Impact on Animal Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hoarding disorder is characterized by an accumulation of possessions due to excessive acquisition of or difficulty discarding possessions, regardless of their actual value and is estimated to affect 2-6% of the population. Animal hoarding, a distinct subset of hoarding disorder, has a significant public health impact on the humans involved, as well as animal welfare. Individuals exhibit self-neglect, apathy, social withdrawal and object hoarding; living within squalid, deteriorated, structurally unsafe and uninhabitable premises, alongside neglected animals. Cases are complex, costly and impact on a range of responding service providers. Effective case management is poorly understood and researched, with published literature in England particularly sparse. Improving understanding of the characteristics of these cases is the first step in informed case management. This research is the first exploration of the characteristics of animal hoarders in England and the areas where cases were located. Information about prosecutions involving large numbers of animals that were reported in the media was systematically obtained. This identified 66 cases between January 2015 and December 2020. Geospatial analysis exploring characteristics of locations where animal hoarding cases are also reported. Findings were broadly consistent with the international literature in that females (64%), those living alone (71%) and those with a mean age of 49 were well represented. Cats (61.5%) and dogs (60%) were the most commonly hoarded species. There was a mean of 44 animals per case and dead or animals requiring euthanasia found in 53% of cases. Key characteristics of the areas where cases were found highlight urban, densely populated, and high levels of deprivation being the most represented. Evidence of recidivism was evident in 39% of cases, suggesting that prosecution is not an effective rehabilitator. Animal hoarding raises serious implications for Public Health Services, and the lack of current effective case management strategies are discussed.
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.