Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39457882›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

A Situational Analysis of Attitudes toward Stray Cats and Preferences and Priorities for Their Management.

Jacquie Rand, Rebekah Scotney, Ann Enright, Andrea Hayward, Pauleen Bennett, John Morton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Urban Cat Management in Australia-Evidence-Based Strategies for Success.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Jacquie RandAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia.
Rebekah ScotneyFaculty of Science, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, QLD 4343, Australia.
Ann EnrightAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-5313-0465
Andrea HaywardAustralian Pet Welfare Foundation, Kenmore, QLD 4069, Australia.
Pauleen BennettSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3552, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5864-4464
John MortonFaculty of Science, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8926-5942

Funding

Financial support for the project was provided by the Waltham Foundation, and resource support was provided by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation through fundraising donations. The authors thank the Special Issue sponsors, the Society for Prevention of NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current cat management approaches are outdated and ineffective, failing to reduce stray cat numbers or related complaints and negatively impacting the job satisfaction and mental health of veterinary, shelter, and municipal staff. We undertook a situational analysis prior to implementing a Community Cat Program based on free sterilization of owned, semi-owned, and unowned cats in the city of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia. The study involved 343 residents in three suburbs in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia with high per capita intake of cats into the receiving shelter and municipal pound. We investigated the prevalence and impacts of free-roaming cats in urban areas, focusing on sightings, associated issues, and community preferences for cat management. Stray cats were observed by many respondents (71%), primarily at private residences (52%) and in alleyways or streets (22%), which caused serious or moderately serious problems for 38% of those who saw stray or wandering cats. Key concerns included the killing of native birds (38%) and animals (35%), noise (33%), and soiling (32%). Actions taken by respondents who saw stray or wandering cats included chasing them away or using deterrents (25%), capturing the cat for removal or calling council (18%) and preventing home entry (14%). Respondents' priorities for the local government management of cats included preventing kittens from being born (94% of respondents) and stopping cats from preying on native animals (91%); reducing disease spread to pets (89%), wildlife (89%), and humans (87%); decreasing stray cat numbers (75%); and preventing cat fights (70%). Respondents favored sterilization (65%) over euthanasia (35%), aligning with the results of previous research. Cat ownership and feeding unowned cats were predictors of management preferences. Only 29% of respondents were satisfied with the current local council management of the problem. Information on the benefits of management by sterilization could further enhance community support.

Indexed as

cat management preferenceseuthanizingkittensone welfaresterilizingwildlife

Identifiers

PMID39457882
PMCPMC11506274

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.