Abstract
Simple SummarySurgical sterilisation is a component of free-roaming dog population management programmes worldwide. However, evidence of the population-level impacts of sterilisation are rarely reported in peer-reviewed literature. Using a priority setting partnership process, we identified the most important unanswered questions concerning these impacts from the perspective of those working with free-roaming dogs. We found that there were many uncertainties surrounding the impacts of such programmes, and how they can be achieved. The top 10 priorities were related to changes in dog population dynamics; risks to human health; human perception and behaviour towards dogs; and logistics related to implementation in the field. Addressing these priorities will enable a more comprehensive understanding of if, how, and why canine surgical sterilisation programmes impact on free-roaming dog populations.Surgical sterilisation is a core activity of free-roaming dog population management (DPM) programmes globally. However, there is limited published evidence on its impact at the population level. To support evidence-based decision making in this field, it is important that research conducted is relevant to those involved in working with free-roaming dogs and implementing such programmes. The aim of this study was to adapt the James Lind Alliance (JLA) user involvement approach to systematically identify the top 10 research priorities regarding the impact of canine sterilisation. International stakeholders with experience working in DPM were asked in an online survey what unanswered questions they had regarding the impact of sterilisation programmes. Thematic analysis of survey responses was used to develop a long list of collated indicative research questions (CIRQs). A literature review was performed to identify questions that were ‘true uncertainties’ (had not been answered by evidence review). These questions were reduced to a shortlist via an online interim prioritisation survey, and a Delphi consensus process determined the top 10 priorities. The top 10 questions related to dog population size and turnover, dog bite incidents, rabies control, implementation in the field and human behaviour change. These priorities were identified and shaped by people with direct experience of canine surgical sterilisation programmes, and as such are an essential resource for directing future funding and research. Addressing these priorities will generate evidence that is directly applicable to policy makers and practitioners who make decisions regarding the management of free-roaming dogs (FRDs) worldwide.
Highlights
Surgical sterilisation is a common component of humane dog population management (DPM) in countries with free-roaming dogs (FRDs). 4.0/).There are often a number of intended impacts associated with sterilisation, such as controlling population size, improving dog welfare, reducing human–dog conflict and reducing public health risks [1]
The aim of this study was to engage individuals with experience working in DPM to identify their top 10 research priorities related to the impact of sterilisation programmes
The aim of this study was to engage individuals with experience working in DPM to identify their top 10 research priorities related to the impact of sterilisation programmes for free-roaming dog populations
Summary
Surgical sterilisation (hereafter referred to as sterilisation) is a common component of humane dog population management (DPM) in countries with free-roaming dogs (FRDs). 4.0/).There are often a number of intended impacts associated with sterilisation, such as controlling population size, improving dog welfare, reducing human–dog conflict and reducing public health risks [1]. Despite the widespread use of sterilisation for several decades in many countries around the world, there is limited published evidence demonstrating if these impacts are achieved [2,3,4]. The use of sterilisation in rabies control is controversial, with recent modelling of different catch-neuter-vaccinate-release (CNVR). Intensity scenarios in the field highlighting the potential difficulties in achieving rapid and sufficient dog vaccination coverage to control dog rabies [5]. The use of sterilisation in rabies control is difficult to evaluate directly, the potential benefits have been described [4,6]. Evidence regarding the impact of sterilisation has implications for both animal and human health and well-being. Relevant, and robust evidence is needed by programme managers, policy makers and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the development, implementation and management of sterilisation programmes to ensure they are efficient and effective
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
