| Summary: | The majority of the global dog population is free-roaming. Efforts to manage these populations often include reproductive control using surgical sterilisation. Opinion regarding the effectiveness of such programmes is divided. Whilst advocates argue that they reduce or stabilise the population, improve dog welfare and contribute to canine-mediated disease control; detractors claim that their population level effects are unproven and that sterilised dogs can still have poor welfare, transmit disease, and cause conflict with humans and wildlife. A lack of impact assessment means that it is difficult to contribute meaningful data to the debate, and therefore problematic to make evidence-based decisions regarding their use.
The aim of this thesis was to examine the use of sterilisation in the management of free-roaming dogs. A systematic review was conducted in order to evaluate existing evidence for the role of sterilisation, alongside vaccination, in canine rabies control. The review found limited evidence supporting additional benefits, and a number of knowledge gaps surrounding the impacts of sterilisation alone. It concluded that these issues need to be addressed first, before the role of sterilisation within rabies control could be better understood.
Given the number of potential impacts identified in the systematic review for which further research was needed, a priority setting exercise was conducted in order to identify what stakeholders considered to be the most important unanswered questions. The James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership approach was used in order to ensure that the results would be relevant to those making decisions about the implementation of sterilisation programmes. Effects on dog population size and turnover, public health risks, and human behaviour change were ranked as the most important areas for future research.
In the final study, interviews were conducted with fifteen individuals involved in the development or implementation of twelve dog population management interventions that conducted sterilisation. Reflexive thematic analysis generated four themes that highlighted the complexities of the dog problem, the multiple pathways through which sterilisation may produce impacts, limitations of sterilisation in solving the problem and facilitators for programme success.
The evidence accumulated from the research identified how management of free-roaming dogs is a complex problem for which there is not a simple solution. A shift in thinking is required away from solutions that focus only on dogs, and towards holistic approaches that address the root causes of problems associated with FRDs. Closer alignment of research and practice that emphasises the co-creation of knowledge would generate relevant and applicable evidence that can better support the development and implementation of programmes that address this complexity.
|
|---|