Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39113721›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Realities, perceptions, and strategies for implementation of an ethical population management program for dogs and cats on university campuses.

Gustavo Canesso Bicalho, Lucas Belchior Souza de Oliveira, Camila Stefanie Fonseca de Oliveira, Adriane Pimenta Da Costa Val Bicalho, Camila Valgas Bastos, Camila Machado Torres, Christina Malm, Fernanda Louro de Souza, Graciela Kunrath Lima, Lorena Diniz Macedo Silva Maia and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Gustavo Canesso BicalhoVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Lucas Belchior Souza de OliveiraVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Camila Stefanie Fonseca de OliveiraVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Adriane Pimenta Da Costa Val BicalhoDepartment of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Camila Valgas BastosVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Camila Machado TorresVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Christina MalmDepartment of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Fernanda Louro de SouzaEnvironmental Management Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Graciela Kunrath LimaEnvironmental and Biosafety Management Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Lorena Diniz Macedo Silva MaiaVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Luiz Carlos VillaltaHistory Department, College of Philosophy and Human Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Marcelo Pires Nogueira de CarvalhoDepartment of Veterinary Clinic and Surgery, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Rossimiriam Pereira de FreitasChemistry Department, Institute of Exact Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Vania Regina GoveiaBasic Nursing Department, Nursing School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Werik Dos Santos BarradoVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Yara de Freitas OliveiraVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Danielle Ferreira de Magalhães SoaresVeterinary Epidemiology Laboratory, Preventive Veterinary Department, Veterinary School, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stray dogs and cats pose significant challenges for public health and animal welfare due to their potential involvement in zoonotic disease transmission, accidents, and aggressions. Large urban centers exacerbated challenges due to the presence of these animals in public areas with high human density. Ethical Population Management Programs (EPMP), rooted in the One Health approach, are crucial for addressing this issue comprehensively. This study aimed to demonstrate the approach on cats and dogs EPMP and evaluate the perceptions of academic community regarding EPMP implementation on a campus situated in urban territory. The study was conducted at the Pampulha campus of UFMG in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. In response to issues of animal abandonment and conflicts, the Permanent Commission for Animal Policies (CPPA-UFMG) was established in 2019 to manage the campus's dog, cat, and wildlife populations. The commission implemented the Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) method, along with health assessments and vaccinations for animals. Interviews were conducted with campus staff to gauge their perception of animal management strategies. Retrospective and prospective analyses of the commission's actions were carried out to assess implementation processes and challenges. The animal population survey conducted on campus between July 2018 and September 2021 revealed a total of 266 animals recorded. Among these animals, 195 were cats (73.3%) and 71 were dogs (26.7%), with the majority being adults. Subsequent surveys in 2019 and 2021 showed a slight increase in the animal population, with measures such as sterilization contributing to population control. Perception analysis among campus users indicated strategies such as TNR were widely endorsed for population control. The employees perception questionnaire was applied to 115 individuals, representing 42 units/departments and five gates. Associations were found between these beliefs and support for institutional actions. The majority favored sterilization (92.17%) and agreed that TNR is an appropriate approach to population control. Overall, the study reflects a community concerned about animal welfare and supportive of measures to address population management and cruelty prevention. The continuous efforts of the university's CPPA have led to stability in the resident animal population, indicating success in achieving population control objectives.

Indexed as

campus universitycommunity animalsone healthperception evaluationveterinary public health

Identifiers

PMID39113721
PMCPMC11303156

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.