Data Dictionary:animal id - Unique identifying number assigned to each specific animaltag number - Unique identifying number assigned to each individual tagtag type- The type of tag or permit purchasedLIC 3Y 3yr spayed/neutered licenseLIC 3YSR 3yr senior spayed/neutered licenseLIC ALTERED 1 year spayed/neutered licenseLIC ASST 1 year assistance animal licenseLIC DD1 year dangerous dog licenseLIC MULTIPLE 1 year discounted license when they license more than 3 animalsLIC PDD 1 year potentially dangerous dog licenseLIC SR 1 year senior altered licenseLIC UNALTERED 1 year non spayed or neutered licensePER ADV Animal Drawn Vehicle permitPER BOARDING Boarding permitPER CIRCUS Circus permitPER CIRCUS EL Elephant Ride permitPER CLASS A Class A kennel licensePER HS Animal Welfare Group permitPER PS NOSELL Pet Shop not selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER PS SELL Pet shop selling dogs, cats or ferrets permitPER STABLE Stable permitPER SWINE Swine permitRAB VAC CERT. Rabies vaccination tagRABIES CERT Rabies vaccination tagtag date - The date the tag was issued to the ownertag expire - The date that the tag expirestag status - The status of the tag or permitCURRENT Tag is currentDEAD Pet is deceasedDUPLICATE Owner lost the tag and it is replacedEXPIRED Tag is expiredGAVE AWAY Owner gave pet away to new owner and did not transfer tagLOST Owner no longer has the petMOVED Owner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyMOVED JEFF Owner no longer lives in Jefferson CountyNO REASON Did not give a reasonNOT MY PET Owner no longer has the petNOT OWNER Owner no longer has the petRENEWED New license has been issuedREPLACED Owner lost the tag and it is replacedRETUR MAIL Owners moved and the tag is undeliverableREVOKED Tag or permit taken away due to violationsTEMPORARY Issued to a person until requirements are metTURN IN Owner no longer has the petUNKNOWN Did not give a reasonvax date- The date the animal was given a rabies vaccinationvax expire- The date the rabies vaccination expirescity, state, zip code - The city, state and zip code associated with the owner of the animals addressanimal type- Type of animal associated with the tagsex- The sex of the animalM maleF femaleN neuteredS spayedU unknownpet dob- The date of birth of the animalbites- Does the animal have a bite reported to MASY yesN nocolor - The color of the animalbreed - The breed of animalvet name - The name of the vet or agency that administered the rabies vaccination.Contact:Adam HamiltonAdam.Hamilton@louisvilleky.gov

Control of dog-mediated rabies relies on raising awareness, access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and mass dog vaccination. To assess rabies awareness in Moramanga district, Madagascar, where rabies is endemic, two complementary quantitative and qualitative approaches were carried out in 2018. In the quantitative approach, a standardized questionnaire was administered to 334 randomized participants living in 170 households located less than 5 km from the anti-rabies treatment center (ARTC) located in Moramanga city (thereafter called the central area), and in 164 households located more than 15 km away from the ARTC in two rural communes (thereafter called the remote area). Logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors influencing knowledge and practice scores. The qualitative approach consisted in semi-structured interviews conducted with 28 bite victims who had consulted the ARTC, three owners of biting dogs, three ARTC staff and two local authorities.Overall, 15.6% (52/334) of households owned at least one dog. The dog-to-human ratio was 1:17.6. The central area had a significantly higher dog bite incidence (0.53 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.31–0.85) compared to the remote area (0.22 per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 0.09–0.43) (p = 0.03). The care pathway following a bite depended on wound severity, how the dog was perceived and its owner’s willingness to cover costs. Rabies vaccination coverage in dogs in the remote area was extremely low (2.4%). Respondents knew that vaccination prevented animal rabies but owners considered that their own dogs were harmless and cited access and cost of vaccine as main barriers. Most respondents were not aware of the existence of the ARTC (85.3%), did not know the importance of timely access to PEP (92.2%) or that biting dogs should be isolated (89.5%) and monitored. Good knowledge scores were significantly associated with having a higher socio-economic status (OR = 2.08, CI = 1.33–3.26) and living in central area (OR = 1.91, CI = 1.22–3.00). Good practice scores were significantly associated with living in central area (OR = 4.78, CI = 2.98–7.77) and being aware of the ARTC’s existence (OR = 2.29, CI = 1.14–4.80).In Madagascar, knowledge on rabies was disparate with important gaps on PEP and animal management. Awareness campaigns should inform communities (i) on the importance of seeking PEP as soon as possible after an exposure, whatever the severity of the wound and the type of biting dog who caused it, and (ii) on the existence and location of ARTCs where free-of-charge PEP is available. They should also encourage owners to isolate and monitor the health of biting dogs. Above all, awareness and dog vaccination campaigns should be designed so as to reach the more vulnerable remote rural populations as knowledge, good practices and vaccination coverage were lower in these areas. They should also target households with a lower socio-economic status. If awareness campaigns are likely to succeed in improving access to ARTCs in Madagascar, their impact on prompting dog owners to vaccinate their own dogs seems more uncertain given the financial and access barriers. Therefore, to reach the 70% dog vaccination coverage goal targeted in rabies elimination programs, awareness campaigns must be combined with free-of-charge mass dog vaccination.

BackgroundCanine rabies causes about 59,000 human deaths each year globally but the disease can be eliminated by sustaining sufficient dog vaccination coverage over several consecutive years. A challenge to achieving high coverage is low participation of dog owners in vaccination campaigns. We explored whether and how previously identified contributory factors to low participation can be addressed through community engagement activities.MethodsWe engaged communities in two wards in Tanzania on dog behavior and handling, safe ways of interacting with dogs, and their perceptions of dog vaccination. We shared and elicited information from them through village meetings, video screenings, posters and leaflets and involved the leadership of one of the wards in planning and implementing a dog vaccination exercise to explore the feasibility of their participation. We assessed the impact of engagement activities with household surveys, meeting reports, observations and focus group discussions. We used a generalized linear mixed-effects model to identify predictors of knowledge and perceptions and compared knowledge amongst respondents before and after engagement activities. Qualitative data was analyzed inductively to explore perceptions of dog handling and vaccination and feasibility, opportunities and barriers to community leadership participation in organizing mass dog vaccination.Main findingsKnowledge of dog behavior, dog handling, and safe ways of interacting with dogs was positively associated with age (p < 0.0001), dog ownership (p = 0.0203), training (p = 0.0010) and previous experience of a dog bite (p = 0.0002); and was negatively associated with being afraid of dogs (p = 0.0061) and participation in a recent dog vaccination campaign (p = 0.0077). Knowledge was low before and significantly improved after engagement activities. The majority (92%) of respondents believed dog vaccination has no negative effects on dogs. Respondents perceived lack of bonding with their dog as a limitation to the ability to restrain a dog for vaccination. The community performed most roles assigned to them in the dog vaccination exercise, but barriers such as lack of motivation for volunteering exist.ConclusionEngaging communities regularly on dog vaccination can improve their knowledge of dog behavior and dog handling techniques, and may help improve owner participation in dog vaccination campaigns.

IntroductionIn a 10–15-year period, veterinary clinics in Sweden and Norway, as elsewhere, have undergone widespread corporatisation. High veterinary care costs have received attention in the lay press and from competition authorities. Whether corporate chains and independent clinics differ in price levels and how clinic characteristics, such as on-call service, affect pricing is not well-documented. The aim was to analyse prices levels and price changes for various diagnoses/procedures for dogs, cats, and horses from clinics in Norway and Sweden and to examine the influence of affiliation (corporate chain, government-run, or independent), extraction date, and clinic characteristics (e.g., on-call service) on prices.Materials and methodsData from a price comparison site were extracted five times between 2 January 2023 and 2 January 2024. Prices for procedures such as vaccinations, gonadectomy, euthanasia, emergency care, diagnostic imaging, certification, and planned surgery were included. Descriptive statistics and mixed models were used to analyse effects of affiliation (Anicura, The Swedish District Vet Officers (DV), Dyrenes venn, Empet, Evidensia, Vettris, and independent), clinic characteristics (animal hospital or not, on-call service, and number of hours open Mon-Fri), and extraction date.ResultsPrices were analysed for 37 procedures (16 dogs, 11cats, and 10 horses) from 771 clinics, of which 502 (65%) were independent. Most clinics with corporate affiliation belonged to Evidensia and Anicura. In statistically significant comparisons, their prices were generally higher than those from the independent group. For Anicura, the median annual price increase (in Euro) was 8%, DV 5%, Dyrenes venn 53%, Empet 12%, Evidensia 15%, Vettris 7%, and the independent group 6%. Multivariable results generally corroborated the descriptive figures.DiscussionTargeting a range of procedures in two nearby countries, veterinary care prices varied with country, clinic characteristics, and affiliation. Clinics belonging to corporate chains charged higher prices than independent clinics. Most prices increased over the year. Possible reasons for the differences between clinics are investments in equipment or number of staff, expenditure on continued education of staff, or different demands for profit. Increased price transparency within veterinary care might reduce the impact of high prices and perhaps also limit price increases.

The Indonesian island province of Bali experienced its first rabies incursion in 2008. Mass vaccination of the dog population has proven effective and rabies cases in dogs and people have decreased, however the virus is still circulating among the dog population. Vaccination coverage must be maintained until rabies elimination. Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of vaccination campaigns is therefore desired. Community engagement leading to preventative health actions by community members can reduce disease incidence and costs of control. Here we evaluate 2 years of a novel community-based dog welfare and rabies control project (Program Dharma) in the Sanur sub-district. The project engaged the services of people living in the project area with an interest or experience in dogs or community health services. These people spoke with owners within their own community about dog welfare and health, monitored owned and unowned dogs and increased owner and carer efforts to access vaccination and further veterinary services. The evaluation focused on a sample of dogs whose owners had been regularly engaged with project. Vaccination coverage was increased and there were no dog or human rabies cases reported in the project area; the percentage of the dogs that had never been vaccinated was reduced by an average 28.3% (baseline unvaccinated 41–49%, post-project unvaccinated 11–19%). The welfare of dogs improved from an average of 20.7% of dogs with visible welfare problems at baseline to 2.7% after project implementation. Roaming dog density observed on street surveys also decreased in all project areas (24–47% reduction dependent on desa). A participatory evaluation event with a sample of Program Dharma community-based agents highlighted several additional successes, including that the community appeared to welcome and value their services and were beginning to support the cost of project activities. Conversely, challenges included identifying dogs in the database during revisits, sustaining the costs of community member time spent working on Program Dharma activities and the costs of veterinary care, whilst avoiding dependency of owners on free veterinary services. The benefits revealed by the evaluation were judged to be sufficient to extend Program Dharma to new areas, whilst evolving activities to resolve challenges.