Cited by 26Veterinary Medicine and SurgeryAnimal Law and WelfareVeterinary Practice and Education Studies

Characteristics of clients and animals served by high-volume, stationary, nonprofit spay-neuter clinics

White, Sara C., Scarlett, Janet M., Levy, Julie K.·2018·Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To characterize the clients served by and the cats and dogs admitted to nonprofit spay-neuter clinics. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE 2,154 dogs and 1,902 cats that were owned by 3,768 survey respondents and admitted to 22 nonprofit spay-neuter clinics across the United States between April 29, 2013, and January 24, 2014. PROCEDURES Participating clinics distributed surveys to clients during each of 4 quarterly study weeks. The survey collected descriptive information about clients' pets and households as well as their decision-making regarding sterilization of their pets. For each of the study weeks, clinics reported the total number of surgeries, including those involving shelter animals, feral cats, and other owned animals. RESULTS Respondents indicated that 49% of dogs and 77% of cats had not been examined previously by a veterinarian, except during vaccine clinics. Among animals ≥ 4 months of age, 1,144 of 1,416 (81%) cats and 572 of 1,794 (32%) dogs had not received a rabies vaccination. Previous litters were reported for 204 of 716 (28%) queens and 153 of 904 (17%) bitches. Most clients' (53%) household income was < $30,000 annually. Common reasons for clinic choice included cost; friend, neighbor, or family recommendation; and good reputation. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Nonprofit spay-neuter clinics predominantly served low-income clients and animals lacking regular veterinary care, in addition to animals from shelters and community cats. These clinics increase access to services needed for animal population control and public health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/javma.253.6.737

Cites

4 of 4 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
White, S. C., Scarlett, J. M., & Levy, J. K.
Venue
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Published
2018-09-15
Volume
253
Issue
6
Pages
737-745
ISSN
0003-1488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890299756
Cited by
26
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4
FWCI
4.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Veterinary Practice and Education Studies
Keywords
pet sterilization, client characteristics, low-income clients, veterinary care access, rabies vaccination, shelter animals, community cats, animal population control, household income, client decision-making, dogs, cats
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities, Animals, Cats, Dogs, Female, Humans, Male, Organizations, Nonprofit, Ownership, Social Class, Sterilization, Reproductive, United States

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