The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hoarding of animals: an under-recognized public health problem in a difficult-to-study population
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“what defines the disorder is not just the number of animals but the inability of the owner to provide the minimum necessary care for them, to recognize their suffering and to provide them with appropriate sanitary conditions [177,235,276,277,278].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [177]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hoarding: a community health problem
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Williams, L. (2000) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00245.x · Cited by 399
Future Directions in Human-Animal Bond Research
Beck, A. M., & Katcher, A. H. (2003) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764203255214 · Cited by 280
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Snowdon, J., Pertusa, A., & Mataix-Cols, D. (2012) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.21943 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Patronek, G. J.
- Venue
- Public Health Reports
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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