Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Hoarding of animals: an under-recognized public health problem in a difficult-to-study population

Patronek, G. J.·1999·Public Health Reports

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to better characterize the problem of hoarding, or pathological collecting, of animals. Methods The author summarized data from a convenience sample of 54 case reports from 10 animal control agencies and humane societies across the country. Results The majority (76%) of hoarders were female, and 46% were 60 years of age or older. About half of the hoarders lived in single-person households. The animals most frequently involved were cats, dogs, farm animals, and birds. The median number of animals per case was 39, but there were four cases of more than 100 animals in a household. In 80% of cases animals were reportedly found dead or in poor condition. Prevalence estimates extrapolated from these data range from 700 to 2000 U.S. cases annually. Conclusions Public health authorities should recognize that animal hoarding may be a sentinel for mental health problems or dementia, which merit serious assessment and prompt intervention. Improved cooperation between humane societies and public health authorities could facilitate the resolution of animal hoarding cases.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/phr/114.1.81

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 118

Metadata

Authors
Patronek, G. J.
Venue
Public Health Reports
Published
1999-01-01
Volume
114
Issue
1
Pages
81-87
ISSN
1468-2877
Cited by
118
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review