SMALL ANIMALS
Assessment of owner willingness to treat
or manage diseases of dogs and cats as a guide
to shelter animal adoptability
Molly D. Murphy, DVM, PhD; Janice Larson, PhD; Allison Tyler; Vanessa Kvam, BA; Kristen Frank, BA;
Cheryl Eia, DVM, JD, MPH; Danelle Bickett-Weddle, DVM, PhD, MPH; Kevan Flaming, DVM, PhD;
Claudia J. Baldwin, DVM; Christine A. Petersen, DVM, PhD
Objective—To determine community approaches to medical and behavioral diseases in
dogs and cats.
Design—Cross-sectional descriptive study.
Sample—97 companion animal veterinarians and 424 animal owners.
Procedures—Companion animal veterinarians in central Iowa ranked medical or behavioral
diseases or conditions by what they thought most clients would consider healthy, treatable,
manageable, or unhealthy (unmanageable or untreatable). In a parallel survey, cat- or dogowning households in central Iowa responded to a telephone survey regarding the relationship of their animal in the household, owner willingness to provide medical or behavioral
interventions, and extent of financial commitment to resolving diseases.
Results—One hundred twenty common health or behavioral disorders in cats and dogs
were ranked by veterinarians as healthy, treatable, manageable, or unhealthy (unmanageable or untreatable) on the basis of their opinion of what most clients would do. Findings
were in congruence with animal owners’ expressed willingness to provide the type of care
required to maintain animals with many acute or chronic medical and behavioral conditions.
In general, owners indicated a willingness to use various treatment modalities and spend
money on veterinary services when considering current or previously owned animals as
well as hypothetical situations with an animal. Past experiences with veterinary care in
which an animal did not recover fully did not diminish the willingness of respondents to use
veterinary services again in the future.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—These results provide a baseline indication of community willingness to address medical or behavioral conditions in dogs and cats. These considerations can be used in conjunction with Asilomar Accords recommendations to assess
adoptability of cats and dogs in animal shelters. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;242:46–53)
T
rying to find all relinquished and stray companion
animals a home is a challenge for animal shelters.
Although many animals brought to shelters are healthy
and sociable, a certain number of animals may arrive at
shelters with major health or behavioral issues, which
may hinder their adoption. The purpose of the study
reported here was to determine what types of behavioral or medical issues owners would be willing to address and treat and how companion animal veterinarians would classify various diseases or behavioral issues
according to what they thought most clients would
consider to be healthy, treatable, manageable, and unhealthy (unmanageable or untreatable). These health
status categories were developed in August 2004 at the
Asilomar Accords, a meeting of animal shelter and comFrom the Department of Veterinary Pathology (Murphy, Frank,
Petersen), Survey and Behavioral Research Services (Larson, Tyler),
Center for Food Security and Public Health (Eia, Bickett-Weddle,
Flaming), and the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences
(Baldwin), College of Veterinary Medicine, and the Department of
Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Kvam), Iowa State
University, Ames, IA 50011.
Supported by Maddie’s Fund, a Pet Rescue Foundation.
Address correspondence to Dr. Petersen (kalicat@iastate.edu).
46
Scientific Reports
CI
ABBREVIATION
Confidence interval
munity professionals, with the goal of decreasing the
rate of euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion
animals.1 The health status nomenclature developed
represents the only current, accepted standardization
of health data collection and reporting across animal
shelters. Our objective was to provide insight into the
attitudes of companion animal owners toward medical
and behavioral issues and the level of commitment they
are willing to put forth to resolve these issues. These
data would help animal shelters to determine at animal
intake which less-than-healthy or behavior-deficient
animals are the best candidates for medical or behavioral intervention strategies and placement via adoption.
Materials and Methods
Veterinarian survey—On July 16, 2009, a paper
survey,a cover letter, and postage-paid return envelope
were sent to a sample of 204 small and mixed animal
veterinarians. The target population for the survey was
practicing small and mixed animal veterinarians in the
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
Animal owner survey—In the summer of 2009, a
random sample of household and cell phone numbers
were selected to participate in a telephone surveya conducted by the Iowa State University Center for Survey
Statistics and Methodology. Survey participants were
identified via a random digit dial sample of Polk County, Iowa, and Story County, Iowa, landline and shared
landline and cell phone telephone numbers provided
by a commercial vendor.b Households that had owned
at least 1 cat or dog within the preceding 3 years were
invited to participate in the survey. It was requested
that an adult responsible for making financial decisions
pertaining to animal care and ownership complete the
survey. Interviews were performed by trained interviewers employed by the Iowa State University Center
for Survey and Statistical Analysis using a prepared
script and question set, including questions concerning
household demographics, number and type of animals
owned, where the animals were obtained, frequency of
and reasons for visiting a veterinarian, types and duration of interventions (treatments) the owner would be
willing to use in the case of animal health or behavioral
problems, amounts of money owner would be willing to spend to address hypothetical health concerns
with variable projected levels of treatment success, and
owner’s approach to recent animal health or behavioral
problems and outcome and amount of money actually
spent addressing these problems.
Data analysis—To determine statistical differences
in the way households responded to hypothetical questions, the following approach was used, depending
on species in the household. For comparisons of dogonly versus cat-only or mixed species households, an
ANOVA was used to test for differences among these 3
groups. The assumption that observations were independent within a group and across groups was met because these were all different households. The assumption that each group had the same variance was also
met because the ratio of the largest to smallest sample
variance was < 2 in all 3 hypothetical situations. The
normality of the data within each group was also investigated. The data had a normal distribution as assessed
via normal quartile plots. Subsequent to significant
ANOVA comparisons, a set of confidence intervals were
computed for differences between means of each set of
survey response data. The specified familywise probability of coverage was set at 0.05. Intervals were based
on the Studentized range statistic and the Tukey honestly significant difference method. All 2-sample and
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
paired t tests used to test hypotheses were performed
at a significance level of 0.05 and did not assume equal
variance (Welch t test). In the assessment of past negative treatment outcomes on predicted future behavior,
a paired t test was used to account for the dependence
structure. The assumption of normality was met in all
cases. Commercial softwarec was used for all statistical
analyses.
Results
Survey of veterinarians regarding owner response
to diseases—To determine the attitudes of veterinarians and, through them, their clients concerning the
manageability of various health and behavioral issues in cats and dogs, a sample of 204 small animal
and mixed animal practice veterinarians were invited
to complete a written survey. Of the contacted veterinarians, 97 eligible veterinarians completed the mail
surveys (response rate, 47.5%), in which they were
asked to categorize medical and behavioral conditions
on the basis of their perception of what a typical client
would do when presented with a diagnosis of any of
the listed conditions in their companion animals. Category options were healthy, treatable, manageable, and
unhealthy. Following compilation of responses to the
survey, the authors placed each condition into a final
category (healthy, treatable, manageable, or unhealthy)
if > 50% of responding veterinarians were in agreement
with a particular classification of a condition (Table 1
and data not shown). Conditions that fell under the category of treatable or manageable included many chronic
disorders that would require client contributions of
money or time to address, such as moderate shyness or
separation anxiety, diabetes mellitus, mild to moderate
elimination disorders, hyper- and hypoadrenocorticism,
and autoimmune disease (data not shown). Several disorders were identified by > 50% of responding veterinarians as unhealthy, including severe aggression, severe
elimination disorders, chronic renal failure, and debilitating osteoarthritis. Use of simple majority (≥ 50%) veterinarian agreement to delineate categories was chosen
by the authors after reviewing the veterinarian responses
and owner responses regarding willingness to use treatment modalities (Table 2) as well as reviewing the category definitions as described in the Asilomar Accords.1
Demographics of respondents and role of animal
in household—To corroborate our findings provided
by veterinarians in the same animal-owning population
regarding approaches to various medical and behavioral diseases, 423 cat and dog owner interviews were
completed regarding their past and hypothetical willingness to provide various treatments and interventions
for their animals. Responses were obtained from 424
owners, which represented 90.0% of all owners willing to be screened and 37.9% of all households willing
to be screened. One respondent did not complete the
phone survey. The majority (68.8%) of all owners responsible for making financial decisions pertaining to
their animals were female, and more than half (51.5%)
of female respondents were within the range of 45 to
64 years of age. When asked about cats’ or dogs’ status
within the household, 78.7% of respondents considered
Scientific Reports
47
SMALL ANIMALS
metropolitan area of Des Moines, Iowa. Multiple sources,
including local and state veterinary associations, phone
books, and investigator personal knowledge, were used
to develop the sample frame, seeking to identify all relevant veterinarians in the geographic area. Surveys were
sent to all individuals identified in the sample frame.
The survey contained a listing of various behavioral and
medical conditions, and respondents were asked to classify each condition as healthy, treatable, manageable, or
unhealthy (untreatable or unmanageable), as adapted
from Asilomar Accords1 definitions (Appendix) of these
terms on the basis of their perception of their typical clients’ response to each condition.
SMALL ANIMALS
Table 1—Veterinarian (n = 97) classification of various diseases or conditions (categorized as behavioral or medical) into treatment
categories based on what they thought most clients would consider healthy, treatable, manageable, or unhealthy (unmanageable or
untreatable) in a survey of small and mixed animal veterinarians in Des Moines, Iowa.
Respondents (%)
Disease or condition
Healthy
Treatable
Manageable
Unhealthy
Behavioral
Mild to moderate phobias
Mild to moderate shyness, with no aggression
Mild to moderate separation anxiety
Mild to moderate interdog or intercat aggression
Mild to moderate territorial, protective, or resource guarding aggression
Mild to moderate elimination disorder
Mild to moderate fear or pain aggression
Mild to moderate play aggression
4
26
5
4
1
1
2
6
36
43
39
17
23
41
26
42
60
32
55
74
70
53
67
47
0
0
1
3
3
3
4
4
Psychogenic alopecia (overgrooming)
Mild to moderate dominance aggression
Feral animal (eg, cat)
Severe phobias
Severe play aggression
Severe separation anxiety
Severe interdog or intercat aggression
Severe fear or pain aggression
Severe elimination disorder
Severe territorial, protective, or resource guarding aggression
Severe dominance aggression
5
1
23
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
24
19
24
7
5
5
1
2
4
2
2
64
62
31
65
57
55
40
36
35
28
12
5
15
18
24
32
33
52
57
57
63
82
Medical
Pregnancy
Limb disability (eg, single forelimb amputation)
Geriatric with absence of medical or behavioral disease
Severe autoimmune disease
Severe congestive heart failure
Debilitating osteoarthritis
Severe cardiomyopathy
Spinal cord injury
Severe chronic renal failure
Severe neoplasia
FeLV or FIV infection with moderate to severe clinical signs
Clinical feline infectious peritonitis
64
35
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
30
30
10
6
2
5
3
9
2
1
2
0
1
30
14
48
41
40
37
29
22
14
10
7
1
3
1
44
54
51
56
53
76
81
84
88
As a part of the veterinary survey, veterinarian respondents were provided a brief written definition of each category based on definitions
modified from those developed as a part of the Asilomar Accords (Appendix).
Table 2—Reasons for which owners would seek veterinary care
for a cat versus a dog by percentage of households in a survey of
424 cat- or dog-owning households in central Iowa.
Respondents (%)
Reason for veterinary visit
Cat
Dog
Vaccination
Annual exam
Serious illness
Serious injury
Other reasons
89.2
73.5
95.5
96.4
21.1
98.8
88.8
98.4
97.2
23.1
Other reasons category was a free-response option. For this
open-ended response, owners specified services, including grooming, nail trim, sterilization surgery, dental prophylaxis, and boarding.
the animal a member of the family, 20.6% considered
the animal to be a pet or companion, and 0.71% considered the animal to be property (data not shown).
Source of cats and dogs—Owners reported acquiring their animals from several sources, the most frequent of these being other persons (53.9%), pet stores
(41.4%), and animal shelters (32.2%; data not shown).
Individual households could and did report multiple
sources for their animals. Among cat-only households
(n = 102), 37.3% of households reported getting an animals from a shelter. More than half of cat-only households (58.8%) reported receiving an animal from some48
Scientific Reports
one else, and 31.4% reported taking in a stray cat, in
contrast to receiving an animal from commercial sources (breeder [3.9%] or pet store [5.9%]; data not shown).
Among dog-only households (n = 200), 23.0% reported
getting a dog from a shelter. Pet stores supplied animals
to more than half of dog-only households (56.5%), in
contrast to breeders (5.5%). Dog-only households also
reported obtaining animals from someone else (44.0%)
and by taking in strays (5.5%; data not shown).
Reasons for seeking veterinary care—Survey participants were presented with a list of possible reasons
for taking a cat or dog to a veterinarian and were asked
to choose all that were appropriate. The percentage of
households that would take an animal to a veterinarian
for these various reasons was summarized (Table 2).
Two hundred twenty-three (52.7%) owners responded
to questions regarding cats and veterinary care, and 321
(75.9%) owners responded to questions pertaining to
dogs and veterinary care. Notably, a higher percentage
of households expressed a willingness to take a dog to
the veterinarian than would take a cat to the veterinarian for the same reason. Respondents were invited to
list other reasons for veterinary visits in a free-response
question; these included grooming (n = 22), boarding
(20), and nail trims (18) for dogs and spaying or neutering (n = 12), dental prophylaxis or treatment (10),
and boarding (9) for cats.
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
Respondents (%)
Treatment modality
Give pills twice daily for 1 mo
Give pills twice daily for rest of life
Give eyedrops twice daily for 1 mo
Give eyedrops twice daily for rest of life
Take to veterinarian 2 times weekly for 3 mo to receive treatment
Feed a special diet for 1 mo
Feed a special diet for rest of life
Give an injection once daily for rest of life
Spend 10 min 3 times daily for 6 wk to train
Very likely
Likely
Neutral
Not likely
Not at all likely
90.1
73.3
86.1
70.9
50.1
92
80.9
60.8
63.4
5.2
10.9
7.3
12.8
15.8
5.7
9
12.3
13
4.02
9
4.7
8.8
18.7
1.4
6.9
13
15.8
0.47
3.1
1.4
2.8
9.9
0.7
1.9
6.9
2.6
0.24
3.1
0.5
4.3
5
0.2
1.4
6.9
4.5
A random sample of household and cell phone numbers were selected to participate in a telephone survey.a Households that had owned at
least 1 cat or dog within the preceding 3 years were invited to participate in the survey. It was requested that an adult responsible for making
financial decisions pertaining to animal care and ownership complete the survey. Responses were obtained from 424 owners, which represented
90.0% of all owners willing to be screened and 37.9% of all households willing to be screened. Telephone interviewers listed several treatment
modalities, and respondents were asked to specify on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = not at all likely and 5 = very likely) the likelihood that the owner would
perform a particular type of treatment if needed by their animal.
Willingness to administer various modalities of
care—To elucidate owners’ general willingness to treat
subacute to chronic health or behavioral issues, survey
participants were asked to rank the likelihood of administering a particular treatment on a scale of 1 (not
at all likely) to 5 (very likely; Table 3). More than 70%
of households reported a willingness (very likely) to
administer treatments associated with various chronic
conditions, including the administration of pills twice
daily for the rest of the animal’s life (73.3%), eyedrops
twice daily for life (70.9%), and feeding a special diet
for life (80.9%). Fewer households responded that they
were very likely to spend 10 minutes 3 times daily for 6
weeks to train an animal (63.4%), administer an injection daily for life (60.8%), or take an animal to the vet
twice a week for 3 months (50.1%) for a treatment.
Recent approaches to a seriously ill or injured cat
or dog—Respondents were asked to reflect upon an animal that was seriously ill or injured within the preceding 3 years and were questioned about their treatment
approach and outcome. Eighty-one respondents reported having had a seriously ill or injured cat, and 158
respondents reported having a seriously ill or injured
dog within the preceding 3 years. Owners were asked
whether they did any or all the following: watched to
see whether the animal would get better, treated the
animal at home, took the animal to the veterinarian,
or did something else (free response; data not shown).
Approaches were frequently used in tandem for ill or
injured dogs and cats, with 98.7% of dog owners and
92.6% of cat owners reporting that they took their seriously ill or injured animal to the veterinarian, often
after they watched the animal to see whether it got better (72.1% of dog owners and 66.7% of cat owners)
and treating their animal at home (68.4% of dog owners and 66.7% of cat owners). Other approaches listed
by respondents via the free-response category included
implementation of special diet, euthanasia, delivery of
body of deceased animal to veterinarian for disposal,
burial of deceased animal in yard, and relinquishment
of animal to local open-admission animal shelter. Reported outcomes by percentage of households, with
multiple responses per owner occurring frequently for
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
multianimal households, included complete recovery
(cats, 53.1%; dogs, 68.4%), some level of recovery (cats,
7.4%; dogs, 13.3%), still treating (cats, 14.8%; dogs,
11.4%), death of animal (cats, 61.7%; dogs, 39.9%),
and gave animal away (dogs, 0.6%; data not shown).
Willingness to spend money for hypothetical
treatment outcomes—Respondents were asked to consider 3 hypothetical outcomes involving a young cat or
dog with a serious illness or injury and how much they
would be willing to invest financially for a particular
outcome. Outcomes included a good chance of recovery, a 50:50 chance of recovery, and a poor chance of
recovery (data not shown). For a good chance of recovery, 91.5% of respondents expressed a willingness to
spend at least $100.00. For a 50:50 chance of recovery,
81.8% of respondents would spend at least $100.00.
For a poor chance of recovery, 47.8% of respondents
would spend at least $100.00 on treatment. Nearly onethird of respondents (31.0%) would spend > $1,000.00
for a good chance of recovery, 20.3% for a 50:50 chance
of recovery, and 9.7% for a poor chance of recovery in
these hypothetical situations.
Approach to hypothetical scenarios for dog-only
versus cat-only households—On the basis of findings
from studies2,3 that determined that cat and dog owners
spent different amounts on their respective animals, it
was hypothesized that cat-only and dog-only households
would differ in the amount of money they were willing
to spend on a hypothetical young animal regarding the
3 hypothetical treatment outcomes. An ANOVA was run
to identify the presence of significant differences in willingness of owners to spend on treating their animals, followed by a Tukey test to determine significance of these
differences between cat-only, dog-only, and mixed animal
households. As a part of the survey, respondents were
asked to select which range corresponded to the dollar
amount they would be willing to spend for each of the
3 possible outcomes. For ease of response and analysis,
monetary spending intervals were each assigned a numeral between 1 and 5 as follows: 1 = < $50, 2 = $50.00
to < $100.00, 3 = $100.00 to < $500.00, 4 = $500.00 to <
$1,000.00, and 5 = ≥ $1,000.00. If ensured a good treatment outcome, the mean response among all responScientific Reports
49
SMALL ANIMALS
Table 3—Willingness to administer various treatment modalities by percentage of households in a survey of 424 cat- or dog-owning
households in central Iowa.
SMALL ANIMALS
dents (dog-only, cat-only, and mixed animal households)
was 3.79 (95% CI, 3.70 to 3.89), indicating that a typical
household would be willing to spend > $100.00 for a
sick cat or dog with a good chance of recovery. When
looking at cat-only versus dog-only owners who were
ensured a good hypothetical outcome, there was a significant (P = 0.003) difference in amounts that dog-only
versus cat-only owners would be willing to spend on veterinary care, with the mean response for willingness to
spend being greater for dog owners (3.96) than for cat
owners (3.57).
If ensured a 50:50 chance of recovery, the mean response among all respondents was 3.44 (95% CI, 3.35
to 3.55), indicating that a typical household would be
willing to spend > $100.00 for a sick animal with a 50:50
chance of recovery. There was a significant (P = 0.002)
difference in amounts that dog-only versus cat-only
owners would be willing to spend on veterinary care,
with the mean response for willingness to spend being
greater for dog owners (3.65) than for cat owners (3.22).
When given a poor chance of recovery, the mean response among all respondents was 2.53, (95% CI, 2.41
to 2.65), indicating that a typical household would be
willing to spend at least $50.00 on a cat or dog with a
poor chance of recovery. There was a significant (P =
0.025) difference in amounts that dog-only versus catonly owners were willing to spend on veterinary care,
with the mean response for willingness to spend being
greater for dog owners (2.67) than for cat owners (2.26).
Actual reported veterinary expenditures involving a recently ill or injured cat or dog—To determine
whether respondents’ responses to the hypothetical
scenarios are a valid predictor of their actual behavior
concerning a real animal, we performed an analysis of a
subset of our animal-owning respondents (n = 231) who
had taken their seriously ill animal to the veterinarian
within the preceding 3 years and reported the outcome
and cost of treatment. For owners who stated a specific approximate cost of treatment, the cost in dollars
was recorded and used in analyses and also assigned to
a monetary interval for the purpose of other analyses.
For those owners who could not recall an exact number, they were asked to select a monetary interval in
which they thought the expenditure had fallen. Monetary spending intervals were then assigned a numeral
(1 to 5). This subset of survey respondents was then
split into 2 groups: those respondents whose animals
had a complete recovery and those whose animals had
anything other than a complete recovery (partial but
not complete recovery, still receiving treatment, or did
not survive). When asked about actual recent veterinary expenditures, the mean response of owners whose
animals had a complete recovery was 3.07, whereas the
mean response of owners whose animals had anything
other than a complete recovery was 3.49, indicating
that typical households had spent at least $100.00 on
treatment of their animals, but there was a significant
(2-sample t test, P < 0.001) difference in amount spent
between these 2 groups.
Regardless of outcome, among owners who reported exact expenditures on a sick dog or cat, there was
not a significant (2-sample t test, P = 0.169) difference
in mean spending on veterinary services between dogs
50
Scientific Reports
($619.87) and cats ($447.12). Also, there was no significant difference in proportions of dog versus cat owners
whose animal medical event spending was categorized
in the 5 specified monetary intervals (data not shown).
Even among owners who had stated exact expenditures
of at least $500.00, the difference in mean expenditure
on dogs ($1,365.88) versus cats ($1,152.94) was not
significant (2-sample t test, P = 0.509).
Assessment of past negative treatment outcomes
on predicted future behavior—To determine whether
past negative treatment outcomes influence owners’ predicted future behavior regarding veterinary treatment
and expenditures, we again examined the responses of
the subset of owners who had taken a sick or injured
cat or dog to the veterinarian within the preceding 3
years and whose cat or dog had anything other than a
complete recovery (n = 121). Specifically, we examined
the responses of this subset of respondents to our hypothetical treatment outcome scenarios involving a hypothetical young animal (good chance of recovery, 50:50
chance of recovery, or poor chance of recovery) and the
amount of money these respondents would be willing
to spend if ensured that particular outcome. A comparison (paired t test) was then made between responses
to the hypothetical outcomes and reported actual recent veterinary expenditures for a less than complete
recovery. Numerals were assigned to monetary expenditure intervals (1 = < $50, 2 = $50.00 to < $100.00, 3 =
$100.00 to < $500.00, 4 = $500.00 to < $1,000.00, and
5 = ≥ $1,000.00). The mean response when told that
the hypothetical animal would have a good chance of
recovery was 3.84, which was significantly (P = 0.001)
different from the mean amount actually spent on a recently ill, real cat or dog (mean response, 3.49). When
told that a hypothetical animal would have a 50:50
chance of recovery, the mean response was 3.46, which
was not significantly (P = 0.937) different from what
owners had actually spent on their real animal. Finally,
when told that a hypothetical cat or dog would have a
poor chance of recovery, the mean response was 2.62,
which was significantly (P = P < 0.001) different from
the mean of what was actually spent on a real animal.
To look at the impact of negative outcomes on future spending in a different way, we assessed the willingness of owners to take a cat or dog to the veterinarian
for any reason and whether this was negatively impacted by past experiences with a veterinarian-treated animal that had anything other than a complete recovery.
We again analyzed the subset of owners who had taken
a sick or injured cat or dog to the veterinarian for treatment within the preceding 3 years. Respondents were
then divided into 2 groups (those whose animal had
a complete recovery and those whose animal had anything other than a complete recovery), and responses
to questions concerning willingness to take an animal
to the veterinarian for various reasons (vaccinations,
exam, illness and injury, or other) were assessed. For
both dog and cat owners, there was not a significant
(test for equal proportions; P ≥ 0.11 for all reasons for
veterinary visits) difference in willingness to seek veterinary services between the group of respondents whose
animals had recovered fully and those whose animals
had not recovered fully (data not shown).
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
The present study found that in general, cat and
dog owners indicated a willingness to use various treatment modalities and spend money on veterinary services when considering current or previously owned animals as well as hypothetical situations with an animal.
Past experiences with veterinary care in which a cat or
dog did not recovery fully did not diminish the willingness of respondents to use veterinary services again in
the future. We suggest that these considerations can be
used in conjunction with Asilomar Accords recommendations to assess adoptability of cats and dogs in animal
shelters.
Shelter workers may determine an incoming animal’s adoptability on the basis of what health or behavioral conditions the shelter is able to treat or address adequately with existing resources. However, the cat and
dog-owning public may have the resources and willingness to treat an animal with these same health and behavioral conditions; thus, these conditions would not
necessarily be impediments for adoption. In the present
study, written and telephone surveys administered to
veterinarians and cat and dog owners in central Iowa
were designed to assess attitudes regarding what constitutes a manageable health or behavioral condition versus what constitutes an unmanageable health condition
(one that may make an animal unadoptable). In the veterinarian survey, respondents were given a list of 120
actual medical and behavioral conditions and asked to
categorize conditions according to what they thought
the typical client judgment would be to each particular
condition. Inherent in the veterinarian respondents’ assignment of a category (healthy, treatable, manageable,
and unhealthy) presumably would be a consideration
of cost to clients (both monetary and temporal) as well
as client appeal or discomfort with various modalities
of care (eg, injections and topical eyedrops). In a parallel animal owner survey, respondents were asked about
specific interventions (eg, administration of pills or injections or performance of frequent training sessions)
as well as associated costs to determine how much time
(temporal cost), effort and money most owners within
a specified geographic region (central Iowa) would be
willing to expend in addressing cat or dog medical and
behavioral issues.
The purpose of the veterinarian’s survey was to
classify actual conditions that may hinder the adoption of cats and dogs from animal shelters. We used
this approach versus survey of people looking to adopt
or adopting at animal shelters because typical adopters would not have the medical knowledge to make a
decision regarding the health of an animal with a specific medical or behavioral disease. Animals regarded
as unhealthy in this survey are likely to be very difficult to adopt from an animal shelter and may have such
poor quality of life that euthanasia is the best option
for these animals in a shelter situation. Animals judged
as healthy are likely excellent candidates for adoption and should be easy to place. Animals with disorders classified by most veterinary survey participants
as treatable or manageable (which includes chronic or
serious illnesses and behavioral deficits) may also have
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
good prospects for adoption, provided that potential
adopters are given the education and support needed
to understand and address their animal’s unique needs.
For 106 of 120 (88%) included conditions in the present study, a majority of veterinarians (> 50%) were in
agreement concerning the classification of a particular
condition. There was not veterinary agreement on 14
diseases, notably, with approximately equal numbers of
veterinarians listing the disease as treatable versus manageable in some cases. Difference in veterinarian opinion as to whether an animal with a particular disorder
can be returned to health or be provided a good quality
of life with treatment is reflective not only of that veterinarian’s client population, but also of that particular
clinician’s training, experience with various treatment
modalities, and personal experience in treating a particular disease. The veterinarians’ collective classification
of various diseases and its applicability to assessment
of adoptability of animals in a particular shelter must
be viewed in concert with an assessment of shelter resources and community attitudes and support, particularly in the case of special needs animals.
The animal owner survey results supported the
veterinarians’ assertions regarding which disorders or
conditions owners would consider treatable or manageable, in that most cat and dog owners stated a willingness to expend the money and undertake the methods of care that would be required to treat chronic or
serious health conditions. For example, at least 50%
of veterinarians identified conditions such as mild to
moderate diabetes mellitus, autoimmune disease, keratitis, or neoplasia as being treatable or manageable, and
most owners expressed a willingness to use treatment
modalities (give injections, pills, or eyedrops), make
substantial financial commitments to veterinary care,
and make frequent trips to the veterinarian to address
chronic illness or injuries in their animals. It is important to note that animals affected by some types of disease, particularly highly contagious infectious diseases
(eg, parvoviral enteritis), which may be treatable on an
individual basis in an isolated setting (eg, veterinary
hospital isolation ward), may put healthy animals at
risk in a population (shelter) or foster home setting.
Shelters will differ in their ability to address diseases
of this type depending on availability of facilities and
resources and will need to realistically decide whether
animals with highly contagious diseases are in fact untreatable (and unadoptable) in their particular facility.
Participants in the owner survey were residents of
2 Iowa counties, which according to the US Census Bureau American community survey 5-year estimates for
2005 to 2009,4 females comprised 51.3% (Polk County)
and 49.0% (Story County) of the populations during
this time period. The US population was estimated to
be 50.7% female during the same time period.4 Among
participants in this reported survey, 68.8% of self-selected decision makers for animals were female, significantly (P < 0.007) less than reported in a recent study5
of US pet-owning households (74.5%). More than half
(51.5%) of the female respondents in our study were
between 45 and 64 years of age. Of the persons living
in Polk County and Story County, 24% and 18.8%, respectively, were between 45 and 64 years of age at the
Scientific Reports
51
SMALL ANIMALS
Discussion
SMALL ANIMALS
time of our survey; across the United States, 25.3% of
the population fell into this age bracket.4 Consumers
in this age bracket, primarily Baby Boomers, have been
identified as “the best customers of veterinary services,”
with householders in the age bracket of 45 to 54 years
having a 40% greater mean expenditure on veterinary
services.6 Marketing strategies targeting this population
(ie, female Baby Boomers) may prove fruitful for shelters, particularly in the area of special needs adoptions,
in which adopted animals will require a long-term financial and temporal commitment by the adopter in
managing health or behavioral issues. Females in the
age bracket of 40 to 59 years already make up the predominant volunteer pool at animal shelters.7 When
asked about the role of the cat or dog in the household,
the majority of respondents (78.7%) indicated that
the animal was a member of the family, rather than
a companion (ie, pet; 20.6%), or an item of property
(0.71%) This distinction is important; animal owners
who consider the animal a family member spend more
on veterinary care and make more frequent visits to the
veterinarian.2
To determine the willingness of animal owners to
spend on an adopted animal, dog or cat owners were
presented with several hypothetical treatment outcomes and asked how much they would be willing to
spend to achieve the specified outcome. These data
were compared with actual amounts owners spent on
past serious veterinary medical problems with a similar outcome to the hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation responses were very similar to animal
owners’ real reported behaviors. Animal owners whose
real animals had anything other than a complete recovery expressed a willingness to spend at least as much on
a hypothetical animal as was spent on their real animal
to ensure a 50:50 chance of recovery and were willing
to spend even more on a hypothetical animal than was
spent on a real animal to ensure a good chance of recovery. This indicates that past negative experiences do not
substantially alter the willingness of respondents to invest again in veterinary care and may actually strengthen an animal owner’s resolve to pursue treatment that
would have a fair to good chance of improving an animal’s health status following illness or injury. This finding implies a belief in the value of veterinary care and,
at the same time, a realistic view of its limitations.
It is important to note that animal owners’ responses to the survey are understandably different from what
they might do for a yet unadopted animal in that these
responses are influenced by owners’ feelings toward
bonded animals. The level of commitment to an animal that has been in the household for several years is
likely to be high and would therefore likely be accompanied by a high level of motivation to spend time and
money to treat medical or behavioral disorders. Indeed,
a recent study8 exploring owner-animal and clientveterinarian bonds demonstrated that the bond between animals and their owners has a large impact on
owners’ willingness to spend money on veterinary care
and that “care decisions were not necessarily made on
the basis of the income of clients but rather on their
attachment to their pets and their understanding of the
importance and value of the recommendations of their
52
Scientific Reports
veterinarians.” It is difficult to accurately assess the level of commitment that an animal owner may have for
a potentially adopted animal. Therefore, the responses
to the hypothetical scenarios are considered, at best, to
be rough approximations of future behaviors involving
shelter-adopted cats or dogs.
If cat or dog owners are willing to make a major
investment, both financial and temporal, in the treatment of their animals’ illnesses or behavioral deficiencies, this suggests that there are other reasons special
needs animals are difficult to place. A recent study9
of adoptions from a large municipal animal shelter in
Sacramento County, Calif, determined that dogs or cats
that were relinquished to a shelter due to behavioral
problems, being injured, or being old and sick were less
readily adopted. Similar trends have been noted in the
United Kingdom,10 and it is likely that a similar situation exists in the Midwestern United States, where the
present study was conducted. The common perception
is that potential adopters want young, healthy animals
that will remain active and energetic for many years.
However, the acquisition of an animal is only 1 reason
that persons approach animal shelters when selecting
a domestic animal companion; other reasons include
a desire to help animals in need or to give hard luck
cases another chance at a good life. To facilitate the
adoption of special needs animals, shelters can provide
comprehensive, point-of-contact information regarding
the type of commitment required to manage various
chronic health or behavioral disorder and conditions
and develop promotional materials (posters or advertisements) emphasizing the positive aspects of each
animal.
Cat and dog owners have reported that they rarely
(5% of dog or cat owners3) are provided with animal
health information by animal shelter personnel. Potential adopters may not have previous experience with a
particular illness or behavioral issue and may not have
established a relationship with a veterinarian; therefore, animals may be passed over during shelter visits
because of lack of access to immediate information regarding these problems. Providing kennel-side disease
information sheets as well as the opportunity to talk
with trained shelter volunteers or staff about a particular disease and its management could provide timely
information and help dispel any misgivings or misinformation that may sway potential adopters away from
special needs animals. Offering hands-on intervention
instruction regarding administration of treatment modalities that owners may find intimidating (eg, giving
injections or eyedrops) can help to build adopter confidence and comfort with treating their potential adopted
animals. Educational seminars, hosted by shelters and
conducted by partnering veterinarians, could provide
a brief introduction to common chronic veterinary
medical and behavioral disorders and their treatment
or management, building a base of future clients and
patients in need of care for a veterinary practice.
In some communities, shelter resources are limited, but the animal-owning public may be found to be
receptive to the level of financial and temporal commitment necessary to treat chronic disorders in animals. In all situations, but especially these, advertising
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
consider which animals are adoptable or unadoptable
in their particular locale.
a.
b.
c.
Copies of the survey are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Survey Sampling International, Shelton, Conn.
R, version 2.15.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. Available at: www.r-project.org/. Accessed Aug 20, 2012.
References
1.
Asilomar Accords. Available at: www.asilomaraccords.org/2004accords5.pdf. Accessed Aug 20, 2012.
2. AVMA. US pet ownership and demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, Ill: AVMA, 2007.
3. American Pet Product Manufacturers Association. 2007–2008
APPMA national pet owners survey. Greenwich, Conn: American
Pet Product Manufacturers Association, 2008.
4. US Census Bureau. American community survey 5-year estimates for 2005–2009. Data profile, Iowa. Available at www.
census.gov/acs/www/. Accessed Aug 19, 2012.
5. Shepherd AJ. Results of the 2007 AVMA survey of US pet-owning households regarding use of veterinary services and expenditures. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:727–728.
6. The New Strategist Editors. Who’s buying for pets. 6th ed. Ithaca,
NY: New Strategist Publications, 2008;50.
7. Neumann SL. Animal welfare volunteers. Who are they, and
why do they do what they do? Anthrozoös 2010;23:351–364.
8. Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet
and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. J Am
Vet Med Assoc 2008;232:531–540.
9. Lepper M, Kass PH, Hart LA. Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia among dogs and cats in a California animal shelter.
J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2002;5:29–42.
10. Diesel G, Smith H, Pfeiffer DU. Factors affecting time to
adoption of dogs re-homed by a charity in the UK. Anim Welf
2007;16:353–360.
Appendix
Definitions used in a survey asking small and mixed animal veterinarians in Des Moines, Iowa, to rank medical or behavioral diseases
or conditions on the basis of what they thought most clients would consider to be healthy, treatable, manageable, and unhealthy (unmanageable or untreatable).
Classification
Definition
Healthy
Treatable
Manageable
No signs of disease or any behavioral problems
Not currently healthy but likely to become so if given medical or behavioral care
Not currently healthy and not likely to become healthy even with treatment, but would maintain a satisfactory quality of
life if given appropriate care
Dangerous or intractable behavior issues or medical problems that cannot be managed or resolved with treatment
Unhealthy
(Adapted from the Asilomar Accords. Available at: www.asilomaraccords.org/2004-accords5.pdf. Accessed Aug 20, 2012.)
JAVMA, Vol 242, No. 1, January 1, 2013
Scientific Reports
53
SMALL ANIMALS
campaigns profiling individual special needs animals
may assist shelters in obtaining financial donations
necessary for the provision of medical or behavioral
interventions while the animal is maintained in the
shelter or foster home awaiting placement in a permanent home. To determine which animals may benefit from such interventions versus those for which an
illness, injury, or behavioral deficit would be impediments to adoption, regional sheltering groups are encouraged to use surveys, potentially similar to those
used in the present study, for their particular region.
In this situation, animals deemed unadoptable within
a region could be transferred to shelters in more receptive regions.
Results of the surveys described in the present
report provide a profile of cat or dog owners in central Iowa and demonstrate a congruency in thought
between cat and dog owners and veterinarians as to
which medical or behavioral conditions may prove to
be a hindrance to home placement of affected animals.
The study identified a high level of public receptiveness to the treatment of many chronic disorders in dogs
and cats and use of treatment modalities and financial
commitments necessary for this. It is clear that within
this region, efforts to promote special needs adoptions
may prove fruitful; many animals with chronic conditions that were previously considered unadoptable may
have good adoption prospects, provided that potential
adopters are provided the information needed to make
an informed decision. Similar studies in other geographic regions will help animal shelters to determine
community attitudes and enable those shelters to re-