Technology for Improving Street Dog Welfare and Capturing Data in Digital Format during Street Dog Sterilisation Programmes
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Free Roaming Dogs
1.2. Importance of Successful Sterilisation Programmes
1.3. Barriers to Successful Dog Population Management (DPM) Programmes in India
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Programme Sites
2.2. Technology and Data Recording
2.3. Online Dashboard
3. Results and Analyses
3.1. Catch-Site Data
3.2. In-Clinic Data
4. Discussion
4.1. HSIApps Role in Returning Street Dog to Caught Location, Digital Data Gathering, and Visualisation of Sterilisation Coverage on Google Maps
4.2. Female Dogs Are More Likely to Die Post Operation Than Male Dogs, but Pregnancy in Females Does Not Make Them More Likely Than Nonpregnant Females to Die Postoperatively
4.3. Younger Females Are More Likely to Have Postoperative Complications
4.4. Surgeon Experience Directly Correlates with Postoperative Outcome
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beck, A.M. The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-Ranging Urban Animals, 1st ed.; NotaBell Books: West Lafayette, India, 2002; ISBN 978-1-55753-245-9. [Google Scholar]
- Stray dogs population control. In OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code; World Organisation for Animal Health: Paris, France, 2019.
- Website-WellBeing International. 2022. Available online: https://wellbeingintl.org/global-dog-campaign/about-gdc/ (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Pal, S.K. Population ecology of free-ranging urban dogs in West Bengal, India. Acta Theriol. 2001, 46, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reece, J.F.; Chawla, S.K.; Hiby, E.F.; Hiby, L.R. Fecundity and longevity of roaming dogs in Jaipur, India. BMC Vet. Res. 2008, 4, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amaku, M.; Dias, R.A.; Ferreira, F. Dynamics and Control of Stray Dog Populations. Math. Popul. Stud. 2010, 17, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wandeler, A.I.; Matter, H.C.; Kappeler, A.; Budde, A. The ecology of dogs and canine rabies: A selective review. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 1993, 12, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fournier, A.K.; Geller, E.S. Behavior Analysis of Companion-Animal Overpopulation: A Conceptualization of the Problem and Suggestions for Intervention. Behav. Soc. Issues 2004, 13, 51–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morters, M.K.; McKinley, T.J.; Restif, O.; Conlan, A.J.K.; Cleaveland, S.; Hampson, K.; Whay, H.R.; Damriyasa, I.M.; Wood, J.L.N. The demography of free-roaming dog populations and applications to disease and population control. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1096–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, L.M.; Hartmann, S.; Munteanu, A.M.; Villa, P.D.; Quinnell, R.J.; Collins, L.M. The Effectiveness of Dog Population Management: A Systematic Review. Animals 2019, 9, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Garde, E.; Acosta-Jamett, G.; Bronsvoort, B. Review of the Risks of Some Canine Zoonoses from Free-Roaming Dogs in the Post-Disaster Setting of Latin America. Animals 2013, 3, 855–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gongal, G.; Wright, A.E. Human Rabies in the WHO Southeast Asia Region: Forward Steps for Elimination. Adv. Prev. Med. 2011, 2011, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haydon, D.T.; Laurenson, M.K.; Sillero-Zubiri, C. Integrating Epidemiology into Population Viability Analysis: Managing the Risk Posed by Rabies and Canine Distemper to the Ethiopian Wolf. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 1372–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vial, F.; Cleaveland, S.; Rasmussen, G.; Haydon, D.T. Development of vaccination strategies for the management of rabies in African wild dogs. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 131, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mani, R.S.; Harsha, P.K.; Pattabiraman, C.; Prasad, P.; Sujatha, A.; Abraham, S.S.; GS, A.K.; Chandran, S. Rabies in the endangered Asiatic wild dog (Cuon alpinus) in India. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2021, 68, 3012–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, J.; Macdonald, D.W. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vilà, C.; Wayne, R.K. Hybridization between Wolves and Dogs. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 195–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrivastava, K.N. Animal Birth Control. (Dogs) Rules, 2001; Notification No. 929, The Gazette of India; Ministry of Culture, Govenmnet of India: Nilokheri, India, 24 December 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Arundale, R.D. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Act of the Parliament of India Enacted in 1960; Govenmnet of India: New Delhi, India, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Yoak, A.J.; Reece, J.F.; Gehrt, S.D.; Hamilton, I.M. Optimizing free-roaming dog control programs using agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 2016, 341, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreira, E.D.; de Souza, V.M.M.; Sreenivasan, M.; Nascimento, E.G.; de Carvalho, L.P. Assessment of an optimized dog-culling program in the dynamics of canine Leishmania transmission. Vet. Parasitol. 2004, 122, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleaveland, S.; Lankester, F.; Townsend, S.; Lembo, T.; Hampson, K. Rabies control and elimination: A test case for One Health. Vet. Rec. 2014, 175, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- International Companion Animal Coalition (ICAM). Humane Dog Population Management Guidance-2019. Available online: https://www.icam-coalition.org/download/humane-dog-population-management-guidance/ (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Reece, J.F.; Chawla, S.K.; Hiby, A.R. Decline in human dog-bite cases during a street dog sterilisation programme in Jaipur, India. Vet. Rec. 2013, 172, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fielding, W.J.; Plumridge, S.J. Characteristics of Owned Dogs on the Island of New Providence, The Bahamas. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2005, 8, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barlow, N.D.; Kean, J.M.; Briggs, C.J. Modelling the relative efficacy of culling and sterilisation for controlling populations. Wildl. Res. 1997, 24, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Standard Operating Procedures for Sterilization of Stray Dogs Under the Animal Birth Control Programme 2009. Animal Welfare Board of India. Available online: http://www.zoonosis.unam.mx/contenido/m_academico/archivos/Standard_esterilization_dogs_india.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Banerjee, T.; Kumar Mittal, D. Studies in Ecology and Behaviour of Stray Dogs of West Bengal. UGC Care J. 2020, 68, 240–241. [Google Scholar]
- Adin, C.A. Complications of Ovariohysterectomy and Orchiectomy in Companion Animals. Vet. Clin. North. Am. Small Anim. Pract. 2011, 41, 1023–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollari, F.L.; Bonnett, B.N. Evaluation of postoperative complications following elective surgeries of dogs and cats at private practices using computer records. Can. Vet. J. 1996, 37, 672–678. [Google Scholar]
- Howe, L.M. Current perspectives on the optimal age to spay/castrate dogs and cats. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 2015, 6, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanborn, L.J. Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay/Neuter in Dogs. Erişim. Available online: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Schneider, R.; Dorn, C.R.; Taylor, D.O.N. Factors Influencing Canine Mammary Cancer Development and Postsurgical Survival2. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1969, 43, 1249–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, B.L.; Hart, L.A.; Thigpen, A.P.; Willits, N.H. Assisting Decision-Making on Age of Neutering for 35 Breeds of Dogs: Associated Joint Disorders, Cancers, and Urinary Incontinence. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Project Location | Data Collection Period | Period When Data Were Not Collected | Months of Data Collection | Data Collection Ongoing? | Total Dogs Sterilised |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dehradun | Jan 2018–Jul 2021 | Apr 2020, May 2021 | 41 | Yes | 20,291 |
Vadodara | Sep 2017–Jul 2021 | Apr 2020 | 46 | Yes | 19,496 |
Mussoorie | Sep 2018–Jul 2021 | Jan–Jul 2019; Nov–Jun 2019–20; Aug–Sep 2020; Dec–Mar 2020–21 | 14 | Yes | 1438 |
Lucknow | Sep 2019–Jul 2021 | - | 23 | Yes | 23,187 |
Kodaikanal | May 2019–Jul 2020 | Sep–Nov 2019; Feb–Jun 2020 | 7 | No | 377 |
Dindigul | Aug 2019–Jul 2020 | Jan 2020; Apr 2020 | 10 | No | 1202 |
Nainital | Jun–Jul 2018 | - | 2 | No | 285 |
Total | - | - | 143 | - | 66,210 |
Project Location | n | Totals | Sex Ratio (Males per Female) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
All Male | All Female | |||
Dehradun | 20,291 | 9350 | 10,941 | 0.85 |
Vadodara | 19,496 | 8907 | 10,589 | 1.19 |
Mussoorie | 1438 | 700 | 738 | 1.05 |
Lucknow | 23,187 | 10,841 | 12,346 | 1.14 |
Kodaikanal | 377 | 60 | 317 | 0.19 |
Dindigul | 1202 | 84 | 1118 | 0.08 |
Nainital | 285 | 68 | 217 | 0.31 |
Total | 66,210 | 31,450 | 34,826 | 1.12 |
Programme Site | n | Health Conditions | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cryptorchidism | Ovarian Cyst | Mange | Mon-Orchidism | Pyometra | TVT | Unicornuate/Single Uterus | ||
Dehradun | 20,291 | 50 | 47 | 105 | 62 | 162 | 190 | 7 |
Vadodara | 19,496 | 50 | 7 | 18 | 28 | 10 | 33 | 0 |
Mussoorie | 1438 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 25 | 1 |
Lucknow | 23,187 | 2 | 34 | 38 | 7 | 47 | 202 | 30 |
Kodaikanal | 377 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Dindigul | 1202 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 0 |
Nainital | 285 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Programme Sites | n | Surgery Duration Was Not Recorded (Excluded from Analysis) | Surgeries Female n (%) | Surgery Duration by Sex Mean (Median) Minutes | Post-Operation Fates n (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | Died | Complications | ||||
Dehradun | 20,365 | 39 | 10,958 (53.9) | 9.12 (8) | 15.22 (12) | 19 (0.09) | None recorded |
Vadodara | 19,984 | 543 | 8884 (45.7) | 6.60 (6) | 12.07 (11) | 23 (0.12) | 77 (0.40) |
Lucknow | 21,739 | 108 | 9951 (46.0) | 10.41 (10) | 16.98 (15) | 43 (0.20) | 300 (1.39) |
Surgery Duration versus: | Male | Female |
---|---|---|
Postoperative death | 27 of 31,605 (0.09%) W = 449,507, p = 0.623 Not significant (Bonferroni correction) | 58 of 28,709 (0.20%) W = 985,691, p = 0.014 Significant (Bonferroni correction) |
Postoperative complications | 222 of 31,605 (0.70%) W = 2196,286, p < 0.001 Significant (Bonferroni correction) | 152 of 28,729 (0.53%) W = 1,385,782, p < 0.001 Significant (Bonferroni correction) |
n | of Which Female (%) | Male (%) | Female (%) | Association | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 | p-Value | |||||
Postoperative death | 60,314 | 28,709 (47.6) | 27 (0.09) | 58 (0.20) | 13.716 (df = 1) | <0.001 |
Postoperative complications | 222 (0.70) | 152 (0.53) | 7.0257 (df = 1) | 0.008 |
n | of Which Pup (%) | of Which Young (%) | Pup (%) | Young (%) | Adult (%) | Association | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
χ2 | p-Value | ||||||||
Male | Postoperative death | 31,605 | 603 (1.9) | 5811 (18.4) | 1 (0.17) | 1 (0.02) | 25 (0.10) | 4.1882 (df = 2) | 0.123 |
Postoperative complications | 2 (0.33) | 36 (0.62) | 184 (0.73) | 2.0441 (df = 2) | 0.360 | ||||
Female | Postoperative death | 28,709 | 431 (1.5) | 8996 (31.3) | 0 | 14 (0.16) | 44 (0.23) | 2.488 (df = 2) | 0.288 |
Postoperative complication | 8 (1.86) | 35 (0.39) | 109 (0.57) | 18.242 (df = 2) | <0.001 |
Pregnancy | Total | Survived | Died | No Complication | Complication | Mean Surgery Time (Min) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No | Number of dogs | 28,474 | 28,416 | 58 | 28,327 | 147 | 14.75 |
Percentage | 95.5 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 99.5 | 0.5 | ||
Yes | Number of dogs | 1333 | 1333 | 0 | 1330 | 3 | 19.37 |
Percentage | 4.5 | 100.0 | - | 99.8 | 0.2 |
Surgeon Status | Number of Individuals | Number of Operations Performed | Operation Time (Min) | Total Postoperative Complications (%) | Total Postoperative Deaths (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | Mean | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | ||||
Experienced Vet | 14 | 35,060 | 2504.3 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 391 (1.12) | 58 (0.17) |
Trainee Vet | 8 | 272 | 34 | 15 | 24 | 34 | 14 (5.15) | 0 |
Total | 22 | 35,332 | 1606 | 8 | 10 | 14 | 405 (1.47) | 58 (0.16) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chaudhari, A.; Brill, G.; Chakravarti, I.; Drees, T.; Verma, S.; Avinash, N.; Jha, A.K.; Langain, S.; Bhatt, N.; Kumar, S.; et al. Technology for Improving Street Dog Welfare and Capturing Data in Digital Format during Street Dog Sterilisation Programmes. Animals 2022, 12, 2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12152000
Chaudhari A, Brill G, Chakravarti I, Drees T, Verma S, Avinash N, Jha AK, Langain S, Bhatt N, Kumar S, et al. Technology for Improving Street Dog Welfare and Capturing Data in Digital Format during Street Dog Sterilisation Programmes. Animals. 2022; 12(15):2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12152000
Chicago/Turabian StyleChaudhari, Amit, George Brill, Indira Chakravarti, Tim Drees, Shrikant Verma, Nidhi Avinash, Abhinandan Kumar Jha, Sitaram Langain, Narendra Bhatt, Sanjit Kumar, and et al. 2022. "Technology for Improving Street Dog Welfare and Capturing Data in Digital Format during Street Dog Sterilisation Programmes" Animals 12, no. 15: 2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12152000
APA StyleChaudhari, A., Brill, G., Chakravarti, I., Drees, T., Verma, S., Avinash, N., Jha, A. K., Langain, S., Bhatt, N., Kumar, S., Choudhary, S., Singh, P., Chandra, S., Murali, A., & Polak, K. (2022). Technology for Improving Street Dog Welfare and Capturing Data in Digital Format during Street Dog Sterilisation Programmes. Animals, 12(15), 2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12152000