Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199835›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Public Attitudes towards and Management Strategies for Community Cats in Urban China.

Xuan Gu, Di Wu, Zilin Zhang, Guo Peng, Anru Ni, Bo Wang, Xiufan Xiong, Yujie Liu, Li Wang

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 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

9 authors.

Xuan GuDepartment of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3966-8844
Di WuCenter for Animal Protection Studies, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Zilin ZhangCenter for Animal Protection Studies, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.ORCID 0009-0004-1279-8379
Guo PengCenter for Animal Protection Studies, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Anru NiDepartment of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Bo WangCenter for Animal Protection Studies, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Xiufan XiongDepartment of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Yujie LiuDepartment of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.
Li WangDepartment of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China.

Funding

Beijing Ta Foundation for Animal Protection NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing community cats in urban China is a contentious and emerging issue, with debates centering on the most effective and humane approaches. This study aimed to investigate public attitudes towards community cats and various management strategies. A survey was conducted involving 5382 urban residents in China. Their attitudes towards the positive and negative roles of community cats in urban areas and their support for different management methods were examined, including trap-and-kill, taking no action, centralized management, and trap-neuter-return (TNR) and its variations. Results indicated that 63% of participants were willing to coexist with community cats, 71% opposed trap-and-kill, and 61% agreed or strongly agreed with the TNR method and its variations. Older residents or those with higher incomes were more likely to support coexistence with community cats. In contrast, younger or lower-income residents were more likely to support non-coexistence. Residents in first- or second-tier cities (e.g., Beijing, Hangzhou, and Jinan Cities in China) were more inclined to support trap-and-kill and less likely to support coexistence than their counterparts in fourth-tier cities (e.g., county-level cities in China). Moreover, those with lower education or incomes were more supportive of trap-and-kill and taking no action as the methods to manage community cats than those with relatively higher education or incomes. Those with higher incomes held more positive attitudes towards community cats and were more supportive of TNR and its variations than their counterparts with lower incomes. Males were more inclined to support trap-and-kill and taking no action and less inclined to support centralized management and TNR than females. The implications of the findings on TNR with adoption programs in urban China are discussed. These novel findings underscore the need for targeted educational campaigns to promote humane and effective management strategies, addressing public concerns and community cats' welfare. The study's insights are critical for informing policy and improving community cat management in urban China.

Indexed as

animal welfareattitudes towards animalscat managementChinacommunity catFelis catusfree-roaming catpublic attitudestrap–neuter–return (TNR)

Identifiers

PMID39199835
PMCPMC11350748

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.