Cited by 24Veterinary Medicine and SurgeryAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Law and Welfare

Characteristics of cats sterilized through a subsidized, reduced-cost spay-neuter program in Massachusetts and of owners who had cats sterilized through this program

Benka, Valerie A., McCobb, Emily·2016·Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine characteristics of cats sterilized through a subsidized, reduced-cost spay-neuter program in Massachusetts and of owners who had their cats sterilized through this program. DESIGN Cross-sectional anonymous survey and telephone interviews. SAMPLE 1,188 (anonymous surveys) and 99 (telephone interviews) cat owners. PROCEDURES Owners who had a cat sterilized at clinics held between January 2006 and December 2008 were invited to complete anonymous surveys. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with owners who had a cat sterilized during clinics held in 2009. RESULTS Most cats had never been seen by a veterinarian previously; “too expensive” was the most common reason for this. Total annual household income was significantly associated with the number of times the cat had been examined by a veterinarian and reason why the cat had not been spayed or neutered previously. Most cats were acquired through informal means and without actively being sought, and there was often a time lag between acquisition and sterilization. Undesirable behavior and avoiding pregnancy were primary motivations for neutering and spaying, respectively. Nearly half of owners who indicated they would have had their cat sterilized through a private veterinarian if the clinic had not been available stated that the surgery would have been delayed because of cost. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Findings suggested that spay-neuter decisions were related to owner income and procedure cost, that elimination of the reduced-cost spay-neuter program would likely have exacerbated the spay-delay problem, and that gradations of financial need should be considered when evaluating relationships between income and spay-neuter decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/javma.249.5.490

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Benka, V. A., & McCobb, E.
Venue
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Published
2016-09-01
Volume
249
Issue
5
Pages
490-498
ISSN
0003-1488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2509130212
Cited by
24
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
cat owners, household income, veterinary care access, inappropriate behavior, pregnancy avoidance, Massachusetts
MeSH terms
Animals, Cats, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Financing, Government, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Massachusetts, Ownership, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sterilization, Reproductive, Patient Satisfaction

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