ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Animal welfare assessment at four dog shelters in Central Uganda: a cross-sectional study using the shelter quality ® protocol.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn Central Uganda, animal welfare advocates are increasingly promoting the establishment of animal shelters as a humane alternative to poisoning for controlling free-roaming dog (FRD) populations. However, dogs at these facilities face a number of welfare challenges arising from insufficient resources and substandard management practices. We aimed to assess the welfare of sheltered dogs in Central Uganda by identifying the animal-based welfare issues faced by the dogs, evaluating the housing and management infrastructure, and determining risk factors of animal welfare compromise. We conducted a cross-sectional study in four animal shelters, between July and August 2024. We used structured checklists from the Shelter Quality
resultsOverall, the shelters housed 141 dogs (average 35.3, range 4-84) across 40 pens (average 10, range 2-17). A total sample of 32 pens were selected from which 81 dogs were assessed. Fifty-seven of the dogs were housed in groups, fourteen in pairs, and ten were housed individually. Thirty five dogs were females and 46 males. Thirty two dogs were juveniles, 41 were adults and 8 were geriatrics. The most prevalent ABMs were; 'too thin' body condition, skin lesions and fear/aggression, reported among 59.3%, 45.7% and 39.1% of the dogs respectively. At pen-level, signs of diarrhea, pain-associated behavior, and stereotypies were commonly seen in 46.9%, 56.3%, and 46.9% of the pens respectively. Multivariable firth's logistic regression revealed several risk factors of poor welfare outcomes; Skin conditions, especially wounds were significantly associated with the'other' bedding type (aOR = 5.27, p = 0.008). Panting was highly associated with poorly ventilated pens (aOR = 82.33, p = 0.010). Pain-related behaviors in dogs were significantly linked to group housing (aOR = 11.92, p = 0.006), while a lack of outdoor access was a risk factor for stereotypic behaviors (aOR = 20.71, p = < 0.001).
conclusionOur findings indicate that the welfare of the majority of shelter dogs was suboptimal, largely due to inadequate resources, poor housing conditions, and questionable management practices. Improving dog welfare in Ugandan shelters requires regulating intakes and implementing evidence-based management interventions. Collaboration with veterinary providers and intervention from animal protection agencies or government bodies can ensure sustainable, high-welfare operations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.