Scoping Review Of Indicators And Methods Of Measurement .
Hiby et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:143DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1051-2RESEARCH ARTICLEOpen AccessScoping review of indicators and methodsof measurement used to evaluate theimpact of dog population managementinterventionsElly Hiby1* , Kate Nattrass Atema1, Rebecca Brimley1, Alexandra Hammond-Seaman2, Mark Jones3, Andrew Rowan4,Emelie Fogelberg5, Mark Kennedy6, Deepashree Balaram7, Louis Nel8, Sarah Cleaveland9, Katie Hampson9,Sunny Townsend9, Tiziana Lembo9, Nicola Rooney10, Helen Rebecca Whay10, Joy Pritchard10, Jane Murray10,Lisa van Dijk10, Natalie Waran11, Heather Bacon11, Darryn Knobel12, Lou Tasker13, Chris Baker14 and Lex Hiby15AbstractBackground: Dogs are ubiquitous in human society and attempts to manage their populations are common tomost countries. Managing dog populations is achieved through a range of interventions to suit the dog populationdynamics and dog ownership characteristics of the location, with a number of potential impacts or goals in mind.Impact assessment provides the opportunity for interventions to identify areas of inefficiencies for improvementand build evidence of positive change.Methods: This scoping review collates 26 studies that have assessed the impacts of dog population managementinterventions.Results: It reports the use of 29 indicators of change under 8 categories of impact and describes variation in themethods used to measure these indicators.Conclusion: The relatively few published examples of impact assessment in dog population management suggestthis field is in its infancy; however this review highlights those notable exceptions. By describing those indicatorsand methods of measurement that have been reported thus far, and apparent barriers to efficient assessment, thisreview aims to support and direct future impact assessment.Keywords: Dog, Stray dog, Population management, Impact assessment, Indicators, Scoping reviewBackgroundThe global domestic dog population has been estimatedto be over 700 million [1]. Reported ratios of dogs tohumans vary from 91 dogs for every 100 people in thePhilippines [2] to just 2 dogs for every 100 people in urbanareas of Zambia [3], however for most populations the ratio is between 10 and 33 dogs per 100 people [4]. Maintaining dog population size and demography in balancewith human ideals can be termed ‘dog population management’ with aims including reducing the number of* Correspondence: ellyhiby@gmail.com1ICAM Coalition, c/o IFAW International HQ, Yarmouth Port, MA, USAFull list of author information is available at the end of the articleunwanted dogs, keeping wanted dogs in a good state ofhealth and welfare, and minimising risks presented bydogs to public health and other animals. An example of aproblem targeted by dog population management is reducing the euthanasia of unwanted dogs; in the USA an estimated 3 million dogs and cats are euthanised in shelterseach year [5]. Public health problems targeted include dogbites and rabies; an estimated 74,000 people die of rabiesannually [6] and over 99% of human deaths from rabiesinvolve transmission of the virus from dogs [7]. In theUSA, 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year, anannual incidence of 1500 bites per 100,000 people, withone in five of these incidents requires medical attentionfor the bite [8]. The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication o/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Hiby et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:143In some countries, the vast majority of domestic dogsare confined and are provided with resources directly bytheir owners, while in others, owned dogs may be unconfined and free to roam, resulting in a visible roamingdog population comprising both owned and unowneddogs. Further, the definition of ownership may vary withcountry, from a fully confined pet that resides mainly inthe home to a dog that lives exclusively outdoors and receives care from more than one household, sometimestermed a ‘community dog’. Interventions to manage dogpopulations can take many forms, designed according tothe dog population dynamics, disease risks and dogownership practices of the location. Interventions include activities such as sterilisation, basic veterinary care(e.g. vaccination and deworming), rehoming of dogs andeducation of dog owners. Regardless of the interventionused, there is a need to assess the effectiveness by measuring changes in relevant indicators.Measuring indicators of impact can reveal whether or notan intervention leads to anticipated changes and can provide valuable learnings on intervention design and implementation. Such learnings can facilitate incrementalimprovements to the intervention, and when these learnings are disseminated can also inspire changes in other interventions. Evaluation of impact may also be required byfunders of interventions, including government agencies (inthe case of interventions funded by public money) and private or organisational donors, commonly associated withinterventions run by non-governmental organisations.This scoping review describes efforts to measure indicators of dog population management effectiveness, alsoknown as impact assessments. Mays et al. [9] define scopingreviews as “to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning aresearch area and the main sources and types of evidenceavailable, and can be undertaken as standalone projects intheir own right, especially where an area is complex or hasnot been reviewed comprehensively before”. The goal of thisscoping review is to describe and critically appraise previously used and potential indicators for further considerationand use in future assessments of dog population management effectiveness. The review also provides key learningpoints relevant for such impact assessments. The results ofthis scoping review contributed to development of guidancefor practical implementation of impact assessments in dogpopulation management interventions [10].Method: Literature reviewSearch strategyThe literature search covered published peer-reviewedjournal articles, conference presentations, reports published by authors but not subject to peer-review, andpersonal communications with researchers and dogpopulation intervention managers. For the purposes ofthis search, dog population management was defined asPage 2 of 20an intervention that targets either, or both, the currentlyunowned dog population or the owned dog populationassumed to be a potential source of unowned or unwanted dogs. The purpose of the intervention would include reduction in unowned and unwanted dogs or inzoonotic disease risk presented by the dog population,but would likely have other impacts in mind. The activities involved in the intervention would vary, but wouldlikely include sterilisation, basic veterinary care such asvaccination, education of owners and rehoming.The search was performed using the following methods:(a).Review of all presentations at the 1st InternationalDog Population Management conference in 2012[11], followed by review of any cited articles orreports mentioned in those presentations relating toassessment of effectiveness.(b).Dog population management experts from theInternational Companion Animal ManagementCoalition (a coalition that includes some of the largestcharities currently investing in dog populationmanagement internationally), were asked to providerelevant publications, reports and presentations.(c).Online search: PubMed, Science Direct (includingusing their ‘recommended articles’ function) andGoogle Scholar were searched for papers with (dogOR canine) AND (control OR management ORpopulation). These limited search terms were usedto focus the search on literature relating to dogpopulation management, as defined previously inthis section, as opposed to the larger body ofliterature exploring changes in owned dog healthand behaviour over time.(d).Snowballing: following relevant citations mentionedin identified papers for review.(e).In addition, interviews (email, phone or in person)were conducted with authors of particularly relevantpublications and reports and with managers ofinterventions known to have invested in assessing theireffectiveness. This was done to establish detailedunderstanding of the indicators and methods ofassessment used.The literature search was completed by end of March2015, with website links updated in late 2015. However,2 conference presentations that were included in thescoping review were subsequently published in 2016, thereferences were therefore replaced with the peerreviewed journal references, as the relevant content fromthe conference presentations had been retained.Inclusion criteriaAs this review was focused on which indicators could beused for assessing change resulting from an intervention,
Hiby et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:143Page 3 of 20a criterion for inclusion was that an attempt was madeto measure an indicator of intervention impact. Impactwas defined as something the intervention aimed tochange. This can be contrasted with indicators of intervention effort, which reflect the time and resources putinto implementing the intervention. An example of anindicator of impact would be the proportion of theroaming dog population with a body condition score of2 (thin) or 1 (emaciated); an example of an indicator ofeffort would be the number of dogs sterilised and vaccinated by an intervention.The review included all studies that involved repeatedmeasurement of an impact indicator, allowing for an assessment of how this indicator had changed over timeand therefore potentially reflecting intervention effectiveness, if an intervention had taken place over the sametime period. However, due to the relative scarcity of reports of indicator use in the literature, studies that reported only a single measurement of an impactindicator, reflecting a baseline for that indicator againstwhich change could be measured over time, were alsoreviewed.A further criterion for inclusion was that the literaturewas available in English.Impact assessmentEthics and consent to participatePhysical health indicators of dog welfare Physicalhealth was most commonly assessed through measurement of body condition score. Body condition scorewas found to increase following intervention in all caseswhere it was used in impact assessment of an intervention [13–16], except in response to a rabies vaccinationonly intervention where no change was seen [17]. Bodycondition scales used were either the 9-point Purinascale validated by Laflamme [18] or a simplified 5-pointversion of this scale.The presence of a visible skin condition was alsoused as an indicator of physical health and was foundto change following intervention on three occasionswhere it was used in evaluation [13, 14, 16]. This wasusually measured as simply presence or absence of avisible skin condition without any attempt at furtherdiagnosis, with any sign of hair loss or scaly/sore skincounted as a skin condition. Steinberger [14] alsodescribes a reduction in ‘serious mange’ defined as‘large areas affected and/or bleeding’, suggesting thatthey used more than two categories or a scale ofseverity.Related to skin conditions was the presence of external parasites: fleas and ticks. This could not be measured using observation at a distance and instead wasmeasured via clinical examination as dogs passedthrough the intervention in one study in India [15].Presence or absence of external parasites was used rather than any measure of infestation severity. A greaterThis review did not involve primary research with eitherpeople or non-human animals, hence no ethical approvalor consent to participate was required.Results and DiscussionLiterature characteristicsThe scoping review encompassed 120 items of literaturein total; 26 were found to report the impact of a dogintervention by measuring one or more indicators (Table1). Of these 26 impact assessments, four were presentedat conferences, 19 were reported in peer-reviewed literature, 2 were in reports and 1 book. Much of theremaining literature explored the demography and interactions of dogs with other species, including humans,but only reported measurement at a single point in timeor if changes were followed over time, this was not in response to an intervention. Nevertheless, some of thesestudies are described in this review as they provided details on indicators that could be used for future impactassessment.The methods of measurement described within the literature reviewed were varied and often several methodswere employed within one study. The methods includedquestionnaires (commonly structured as knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) surveys), participatory researchmethods [12], street dog surveys, health assessments ofdogs recruited to an intervention and analysis of datafrom secondary sources.The literature reported measurement of 29 indicatorsfor assessing the impact of a dog population management intervention. Through consultation with membersof the International Companion Animal ManagementCoalition and other dog population management experts, a list of eight commonly stated impacts of interventions was developed. The 29 indicators identified bythe scoping review could then be categorised into thefollowing eight impacts, although not equally distributed,with some impacts measured by a greater number of indicators: 1) improve dog welfare; 2) improve care provided to dogs; 3) reduce dog population density orstabilise population turnover; 4) reduce risks to publichealth; 5) improve public perception; 6) improve rehoming centre performance; 7) reduce negative impact ofdogs on wildlife and 8) reduce negative impact of dogson livestock.Impact 1: Improve dog welfareThe following are animal-based indicators for measuringdog welfare, these can be split into those focusing onphysical health and those aimed at identifying behavioural signs of psychological wellbeing.
3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnover3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnover3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnover1. Improve dogwelfare2. Improve careprovide to dogs1. Improvedog welfare1. Improvedog welfare1. Improvedog welfareNumber of dogsin sample areasNumber of dogsobserved in‘zones’ demarked byinterventionMark (individualdogs identifiedMark (paintapplied duringsurvey)-resightsurvey ofroaming dogsYesNoMark (ear notchapplied duringintervention)-resightsurveyof roaming dogsStreet surveys ofroaming dogsInterview of localgrocery storesClinical exam of dogswhilst in intervention clinicVideo surveillance ofroaming dogsClinical exam of dogswhilst in intervention clinicStreet surveys ofroaming dogsClinical exam ofdogs whilst inintervention clinicor during handlingfor vaccination(control group)Repeated clinicalexam of cohortof dogsMethod ofmeasurementYesYesPercentage oflactating femalesNumber of dogsYesNumber of dogsobserved insample of wardsYesYesSkin conditionYesDog food purchasesBody condition scoreYesProportion of dogs broughtto clinic, as opposed toneeding to be caughtYesYesInterspecies aggressionSkin conditionNoNoDog-human aggressionBody condition scoreNoNoOpen woundsDog-dog aggressionYesSkin conditionAntibodies to canineinfectious diseases (serology)YesYesYesOpen woundsBody condition scoreYesYes1. Improvedog welfareNoBody condition scoreBody condition score1. Improvedog welfareChange inindicator followingintervention?Presence of ticks/fleasIndicator(s) usedImpact assessedObservational,no onal; repeatedcross-sectionalQuasi-experimental;repeated cross-sectionalObservational, nocontrol group;repeated cross-sectionalExperimental;prospective ;prospective cohortStudydesign typeRoaming dogs removed byAnimal Control and housedNeutering, vaccinationand return ofroaming dogsNeutering, vaccinationand return ofroaming dogsNeutering, rabiesvaccination,basic vet care, biteprevention educationNeutering, rehoming,basic vet care,euthanasiaCastration ofmale dogsNeutering, vaccinationand return ofroaming dogsand return ofroaming dogsNeutering, vaccinationRabies vaccinationIntervention type(limited to dog-relatedactivities)USA (Baltimore), NAmericaIndia (Jodhpur), AsiaIndia (Jaipur), AsiaSri Lanka (Colombo),AsiaUSA (Lakota Reservation),N AmericaChile (Puerto Natales),S eer-reviewedpublicationIndia (Rajasthan), AsiaIndia (Jodhpur), a, AfricaCountry (city orregion if applicable),ContinentTable 1 Summary of the 26 items of literature reviewed that reported a change in one or more impacts following a dog population management ferenceHiby et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:143Page 4 of 20
YesYesIncidence of hydatidcysts in sheepIncidence ofinfected dogsYesYesSurgical incidence ofcysts in humans4. Reduce risksto public healthYesYesIncidence of livestockwith hydatid cystsYesDog rabies casesYesHuman rabies casesHuman rabies cases4. Reduce risksto public health4. Reduce risksto public health4. Reduce risksto public healthYesYesHuman bite injuries fromsuspect rabid dogs4. Reduce risksto public healthYesYesReported dog bites fromlocal hospital4. Reduce risksto public healthYesDog rabies casesHuman rabies cases4. Reduce risksto public healthYesDog bite injuriestreated with PEPNumber of dogs observedon 6 standard routesYesPercentage of owneddogs adopted3. Reduce ge ofhouseholdsexperiencingdog mortalityin past 12 monthsNoPercentage oflactating femalesand puppies3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnover3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnoverYesper square mileof sampled areas3. Reduce dogdensity/stabiliseturnoverPresence of wormsfollowingpurging of dogsSurveillance of offal atslaughter housesQuarterly reportsfrom all hospitalsSurveillance ofoffal at slaughterhousesPeruvianMinistry of HealthData collected fromData collectedfrom district Veterinaryand Health authoritiesdata collectedfrom GovernmentDistrict HospitalsAnimal-bite injuryAccessed publicallyavailablehospital reportsData collectedfrom local hospitalStreet surveys ofroaming dogsQuestionnaireof dog ownersStreet surveys ofroaming dogsand recorded usingphotographs)-resightsurvey of roamingdogs, also knownas photocapture-recaptureObservational; repeatedcross-sectionalObservational; repeatedcross-sectionalObservational; repeatedcross-sectionalObservational; repeatedcross-sectionalExperimental; repeatedcross-sectionalObservational; -sectionalgroup; repeatedcross-sectionalDog dewormingDog dewormingDog dewormingRabies vaccinationRabies vaccinationRabies vaccinationand return of roaming dogsNeutering, vaccinationNeutering, vaccination andreturn of roaming dogsNeutering, vaccination and basichealth care for ownedand roaming dogsRabies vaccinationNeutering, vaccinationand return of roaming dogsfor returning, rehoming oreuthanasia in a localgovernment poundAustralia (Tasmania),AustralasiaNew Zealand, AustralasiaPeru (Lima), S AmericaIndonesia (Bali), AsiaTanzania, AfricaIndia (Jaipur), AsiaIndia (Jaipur), AsiaThailand (Kho Tao), AsiaNepal, AsiaPeer-reviewedpublicationRepor
Emelie Fogelberg5, Mark Kennedy6, Deepashree Balaram7, Louis Nel8, Sarah Cleaveland9, Katie Hampson9, Sunny Townsend 9 , Tiziana Lembo 9 , Nicola Rooney 10 , He
A2 The Scoping Requirements of Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC A3 Implementation of Scoping in the EU A3.1 Mandatory and Voluntary Scoping Systems A3.2 Scoping Reports and Opinions A3.3 Scoping Consultations PART B PRACTICAL GUIDANCE ON SCOPING B1 Introduction B2 Use of the Guidance B3 Scoping Procedures
Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan FED 1.0 Introduction and Background . 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . This document is a Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED) that was included as Appendix J (Volume III) to the AB 32 Scoping Plan document (ARB 2009) prepared in accordance with the California Environmental
Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan FED 1.0 Introduction and Background . 1.0 . INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . This document is a Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED) that was included as Appendix J (Volume III) to the AB 32 Scoping Plan document (ARB 2009) prepared in accordance with the California .
how can we guide decisions regarding best curricular formats amid COVID-19? Methodology We used a rapid scoping review methodology, following and adapting the Joanna Briggs Institute manual chapter on scoping reviews that includes the steps: 1. developing the review questions and review objectives; 2.
Kettlebell training in clinical practice: a scoping review Neil J. Meigh1*, Justin W. L. Keogh1,2,3, Ben Schram1 and Wayne A. Hing1 Abstract Background: A scoping review of scientific literature on the effects of kettlebell training. There are no authoritative guidelines or recommendat
Table of contents 004 –007 Faulted circuit indicators overview 008 –010 Overhead faulted circuit indicators 011 –022 Underground faulted circuit indicators 023 –027 Cellular RTUs and receivers 028 –033 Clamp-type faulted circuit indicators 034 –043 Test point indicators 044 –047 Current sensors 048 –072 Capacitor controls 073 Index —
Indicators of Smart Growth in Maryland NCSGRE January 2011 5 . Conceptual and Technical Issues Common to any indicator effort: - Number of possible indicators. - Measurement of indicators. - Interpretation of indicators. - Aggregation of indicators.
Good Practice Guide - Non-discrimination and Disability Scoping phase The Scoping Phase allows for an initial understanding of potential project environmental and social risks and impacts that are typical for the type of project, location, and context. Scoping plays several roles with regard to disability.
