Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38891662›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Impact of a Local Government Funded Free Cat Sterilization Program for Owned and Semi-Owned Cats.

Jennifer L Cotterell, Jacquie Rand, Tamsin S Barnes, Rebekah Scotney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Urban Cat Management in Australia-Evidence-Based Strategies for Success.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

4 authors.

Jennifer L CotterellAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Kenmore, QLD 4064, Australia.
Jacquie RandAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Kenmore, QLD 4064, Australia.
Tamsin S BarnesThe University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2594-2147
Rebekah ScotneyThe University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3444-2080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most states of Australia, local governments (councils) are responsible for the enforcement of legislation relating to domestic cats. Traditional methods used for cat management based on trap-adopt or euthanize programs have been ineffective, with cat-related calls and cat impoundments continuing to increase, resulting in many healthy cats being euthanized. This has detrimental effects on the mental health of animal management officers, staff in shelters and council facilities, and cat caregivers. The city of Banyule, Victoria, implemented a free cat sterilization, microchipping, and registration (licensing) program in 2013/14. Initially, it was targeted at three low-socioeconomic suburbs with the highest cat-related calls and intake, and was microtargeted at call locations. An average of 4.1 cats/1000 residents per year were sterilized over eight years. The program included stray cats being fed by caregivers, provided they took ownership. The program was later expanded city-wide. Over eight years, city-wide cat intake decreased by 66%, euthanasia by 82%, and cats reclaimed by owners increased from 6% of intake (2012/13) to 16% (2020/21). Cat-related calls decreased in the target area by 51%, and city-wide by 36%. The council realized cost savings of AU $440,660 associated with reduced costs for cat-related calls to council (AU $137,170) and charges from the contracted welfare agency (AU $303,490), for an outlay of AU $77,490 for sterilization costs. Instead of the traditional management of urban cats, proactive management based on targeted sterilization should be utilized by government and animal welfare agencies in Australia and internationally. These types of programs are effective at reducing cat intake and euthanasia and are cost-effective.

Indexed as

animal management Australiaanimal welfarecatslocal governmentOne Welfaresterilization program

Identifiers

PMID38891662
PMCPMC11171210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.