Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:21:14.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting time to adoption of dogs re-homed by a charity in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

G Diesel ,
H Smith  and
DU Pfeiffer
G Diesel*
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK
H Smith
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK
DU Pfeiffer
Affiliation:
The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, AL9 7TA, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: gdiesel@rvc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the factors affecting the time until adoption of dogs re-homed by Dogs Trust, a UK charity. There were 13,338 records included in the study, representing 11,663 dogs. Data were extracted from the Dogs Trust's database between February 2001 and June 2004 representing all re-homing centres in the UK using the database during this time period. A survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression. The results of the study showed that the median time till adoption for all dogs was 28 days (95% CI 28-29 days). The variables which affected the time till adoption were breed, purebred status, size, sex, neuter status on arrival at a centre, age, coat colour, veterinary history and re-homing centre. It was suggested that temperament could be an important risk factor but this variable had to be excluded from the multivariable analysis. Dogs from the gundog and utility breed groups and purebred dogs were re-homed at the fastest rate.

Keywords

adoptionanimal welfareCox regressiondogre-homingshelter
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , August 2007 , pp. 353 - 360
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, GP 1992 Parting with a pet survey. Journal of the Society for Companion Animal Studies IV(3): 5–6Google Scholar
Beaver, BV 1989 Environmental enrichment for laboratory animals. ILAR News 31(2): 5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, P and Perini, E 2003 Tail docking in dogs: can attitude change be achieved? Australian Veterinary Journal 81(5): 277–282CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clevenger, J and Kass, PH 2003 Determinants of adoption and euthanasia of shelter dogs spayed or neutered in the university of California veterinary student surgery program compared to other shelter dogs. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Education 30(4): 372–378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardiner, D 2003 Why we are devoting so much of our energy to pursue legislation for a ban on tail docking in dogs? Australian Veterinary Journal 81(6): 327Google Scholar
Griffiths, BC 1975 Studies from the Birmingham Dogs Home. (1) The problem of resettling stray and unwanted animals. (2) The effect of distemper vaccination upon disease incidence. Journal of Small Animal Practice 16(11): 715–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, PH, New, JC Jr, Scarlett, JM and Salman, MD 2001 Understanding animal companion surplus in the United States: relinquishment of nonadoptables to animal shelters for euthanasia. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4(4): 237–248Google Scholar
Lepper, M, Kass, PH and Hart, LA 2002 Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a California animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(1): 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, LC and Bennett, PC 2003 Reforging the bond - towards successful canine adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83(3): 227–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, LC, Bennett, PC and Coleman, GJ 2004 What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis of data for I year from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7(1): 27–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mertens, P and Unshelm, J 1996 Effects of group and individual housing on the behaviour of kennelled dogs in animal shelters. Anthrozoos 9: 40–51Google Scholar
Neidhart, L and Boyd, R 2002 Companion animal adoption study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(3): 175–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patronek, GJ, Glickman, LT and Moyer, MR 1995 Population dynamics and the risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoos 8: 31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posage, JM, Bartlett, PC and Thomas, DK 1998 Determining factors for successful adoption of dogs from an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 213(4): 478–82Google ScholarPubMed
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1992 The behaviour of dogs in kennels. Animal Welfare 1: 161–170Google Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 2000 Prevalence of behaviour problems reported by owners of dogs purchased from an animal rescue shelter. Applied Animal Behavioural Science 69(1): 55–65CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed