Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42464268›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2026

Animal welfare assessment at four dog shelters in Central Uganda: a cross-sectional study using the shelter quality ® protocol.

Lewis Ashabahebwa, Zozianne Hoareau, Paul Ssuna, Dickson Stuart Tayebwa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Lewis AshabahebwaDepartment of Veterinary Pharmacy and Clinical Studies, College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-1742-8405
Zozianne HoareauDepartment of Veterinary Pharmacy and Clinical Studies, College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, P.O Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6478-044X
Paul SsunaSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources, Animal Welfare Competence Center for Africa (AWeCCA), Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
Dickson Stuart TayebwaDepartment of Animal Health, Vetconekt Initiative, Kampala, Uganda. tayebwa.dickson@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-7538

Funding

Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Animal Welfare Student Scholarships 2024
6 · The paper itself

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

Animal WelfareHousing, AnimalAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesDogsFemaleMaleUgandaAnimal sheltersCanine welfareCentral UgandaFree-roaming dogsShelter management

Identifiers

PMID42464268
PMCPMC13663192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.