Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39902170›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Socio-economic assessment of dog population management systems: a scoping review.

Rabina Ghimire, Parimala Mohanty, Elly Hiby, Andrew Larkins, Salome Dürr, Sonja Hartnack

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Rabina GhimireSection of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Parimala MohantyJyoti and Bhupat Mehta School of Health Sciences and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Elly HibyInternational Companion Animal Management (ICAM) Coalition, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Andrew LarkinsSchool of Medical, Molecular and Forensic Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Salome DürrVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sonja HartnackSection of Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Dog Population Management (DPM) systems primarily aim to reduce the free-roaming dog population, improve the health and welfare of humans and dogs, and foster their peaceful coexistence. A key challenge to resource allocation and evidence-based policy making in DPM is the rare evaluation of the associated socio-economic impacts. This scoping review identifies, maps, and summarizes published parameters and methods on the socio-economic aspect of DPM systems. Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and with a protocol registered on the Open Science Framework, this review explores (i) types of DPM services, (ii) types of parameters (intervention, impact, monetized, or non-monetized), (iii) methodological approaches (such as cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis), and (iv) gaps and challenges in socio-economic DPM assessments. Relevant publications were identified through a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Results: Our review identified 14 out of more than 7,200 studies indicating the limitation of socio-economic data associated with DPM systems. The studies revealed diverse approaches to DPM, sterilization being the most frequently used service, often combined with vaccination and community awareness. Culling was also used by several studies as a DPM intervention, though considered unethical. The review highlighted a range of intervention, impact, and monetary parameters to evaluate the economics of DPM systems, demonstrating the complexity and varied scope of the services. Varied categorizations of the dog population were observed, making comparative evaluation challenging. Economic methods such as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses were observed, identifying several associated economic metrics. Studies highlighted gaps mostly related to data availability and accessibility. Conclusion: The limitations of socio-economic data arise from a lack of standardized methodologies across regions and contexts and limited data collection efforts. Prioritizing systematic collection of data on costs, benefits and social impacts allows for a more robust analysis of DPM systems. Developing tools and standardized reporting methods would further facilitate consistent evaluation of impacts, efficient resource allocation and evidence-based policy making to implement the most cost-effective DPM systems. Systematic review registration: DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NHE3X.

Indexed as

benefitcostdogdog population management (DPM) servicespopulation managementsocio-economic impact

Identifiers

PMID39902170
PMCPMC11789200

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.