Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39518781›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Outcomes of a Community Cat Program Based on Sterilization of Owned, Semi-Owned and Unowned Cats in a Small Rural Town.

Jacquie Rand, Abithaswathi M Saraswathy, Joy Verrinder, Mandy B A Paterson

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Jacquie RandAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Brisbane, QLD 4064, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9401-6745
Abithaswathi M SaraswathyAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Brisbane, QLD 4064, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-4762-7935
Joy VerrinderAnimal Welfare League, Coombabah, QLD 4216, Australia.
Mandy B A PatersonThe University of Queensland, Faculty of Science, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton Campus, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4564-9877

Funding

Financial or in-kind support for the project was provided by RSPCA Qld, AWLQ, 642 Bridgette Bardot Foundation, PetStock, MSD Animal Health, Pets Regardless Foundation, PetRes-643 cue, Cat Protection Society NSW, Neighborhood Cats USA, Sydney Dog and Cats NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Free-roaming cats in urban and peri-urban areas and in rural towns pose significant challenges due to their nuisance behaviors, threats to wildlife, and potential disease transmission. Traditional management methods often involve trapping and euthanizing many of these cats, which is not only costly but also distressing for the shelter staff involved, and have failed to reduce numbers of impounded cats or cat-related complaints. Our study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a Community Cat Program that provided free sterilization, microchipping, and preventative veterinary care for all owned, semi-owned, and unowned cats in a small rural town with high cat impoundments in Ipswich, Queensland. The program was instigated by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation in collaboration with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Queensland and the Animal Welfare League, Queensland, and it was funded by various organizations including Fondation Brigitte Bardot. Data from 2017 to 2023 were analyzed to assess the impact of the program on cat intake and outcomes in local shelters. A total of 308 cats were sterilized, representing 94 cats per 1000 residents over 3.4 years, and in the third year, this was associated with a 60% decrease in cat intake, an 85% reduction in numbers euthanized and 39% fewer cat-related calls to the local council. These findings suggest that high-intensity, targeted sterilization programs significantly decrease shelter intake and euthanasia, and thus alleviate the psychological burden on staff. These programs are a humane and effective alternative to traditional cat management, and benefit animal welfare as well as community wellbeing. This is aligned with a One Welfare approach, which enhances the well-being of animals, humans, and their environments. Legislative changes are required to support these programs to effectively decrease the numbers of free-roaming cats in cities and towns and the issues they cause, while protecting human wellbeing.

Indexed as

community cat programenforcement-based cat managementeuthanasiahuman wellbeingmental healthone welfarereturn to fieldsterilizationTNRurban cat management

Identifiers

PMID39518781
PMCPMC11545350

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.