- Email: [email protected]
Associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in Pinhais, Brazil
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Veterinary Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed
Associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in Pinhais, Brazil
T
⁎
Stefany Monsalvea, , Janaina Hammerschmidtb, Michele Lopes Izarb, Solange Marconcinb, Fernanda Rizzatoc, Gina Polod, Rita Garciaa a
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Veterinárias, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Seção de Defesa e Proteção Animal, Rodovia Deputado João Leopoldo Jacomel 11427, Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil c Laboratório de Estatística, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua Evaristo F. Ferreira da Costa, 418, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil d Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Bioestatística, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Prof. Dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, Brazil b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Animal abuse Physical abuse Multispecies household Animal welfare Associated factors
Dogs and cats are often abused within households. Despite this, little research has been developed to know the factors associated with this crime. The objective of this study was to identify the associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment. We followed up the records of animal abuse investigations of the Protection Animal Division of the city of Pinhais, Brazil. Socioeconomic factors about the owners and four types of indicators: nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral were considered. A binomial logistic regression model was fitted with the purpose of predicting the presence of animal neglect based on predictor variables. The number of animals in the household, disadvantageous economic conditions, the presence of disabled people and a low educational level of the owners were identified as associated factors of animal neglect. Understanding the factors related to the occurrence of animal neglect is fundamental for the development of multidisciplinary preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of this crime.
1. Introduction Multispecies households are evidence of a close relationship between humans and animals. People can create strong emotional attachments to dogs and cats (Cohen, 2002) and recognize them as family members (Flynn, 2000). In the family context, human-animal interactions may be mutually beneficial to the well-being of the individuals involved in such interplay (Faraco, 2008; Friedmann and Son, 2009; Hodgson and Darling, 2011). However, dysfunctional and negative relationships, such as animal abuse, can emerge in this environment (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014, 2012; Hensley et al., 2010; Nathanson, 2009; Polo et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2013). The occurrence of companion animal abuse is a universal phenomenon, often underestimated and considered as an isolated and unimportant problem in the social context (Arkow, 2013; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Nevertheless, in recent years the societal demand to prosecute the crimes against animals has increased (Burchfield, 2016; Marlet and Maiorka, 2010). Likewise, the interest of the scientific community in investigating this type of crime and including it in the domestic violence context and in the field of public health is evident
⁎
(Allen et al., 2006; Ascione et al., 2007; Fielding, 2010). Veterinarians have a responsibility with the promotion of the wellbeing of people and animals (Mardones et al., 2016) and fill critical roles in the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty cases (Benetato et al., 2011). Determining the cause, severity and duration of animal's injuries (or death), as well as the extent to which the animal suffered or experienced pain, are important legal elements of animal abuse cases (Benetato et al., 2011). These elements cannot be established without the expertise of a veterinarian who has examined or treated these victims (Benetato et al., 2011). In this context, the role of the veterinarians includes the recognition and prevention of animal abuse to advocate for animals’ welfare and/or intervene in the interpersonal violence, considering that animal abuse can serve as a sentinel of violence in society (Arkow, 2015; Monsalve et al., 2017). The highest rates of violence against women, children, young people and the elderly occur in the home environment (Costa et al., 2007; Franzin et al., 2014; Slack et al., 2011). In addition, it is known that socioeconomic, environmental, family and individual factors of the victim and the aggressor contribute to the existence of various types of abuse (PérezCárceles et al., 2009; Sidebotham and Heron, 2006; Vieira et al., 2008).
Corresponding author at: Universidade Federal do Paraná, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Monsalve), [email protected] (J. Hammerschmidt), [email protected] (M.L. Izar), [email protected] (S. Marconcin), [email protected] (F. Rizzato), [email protected] (G. Polo), [email protected] (R. Garcia). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.05.017 Received 10 December 2017; Received in revised form 20 May 2018; Accepted 27 May 2018 0167-5877/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
In the same way, some studies report a high occurrence of animal abuse within households (Ascione et al., 2007; Burchfield, 2016), but little attention has been directed to the identification of the factors associated with abuse of dogs and cats in the family environment. Understanding individual, family and socioeconomic factors that positively and negatively influence the human-animal bond is important for the development of multidisciplinary preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of companion animal abuse. The objective of this study was to establish the associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in the city of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil.
Table 1 Indicators selected of Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014 to evaluate the animal welfare degree in the companion animal complaints investigated by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Type of indicator
Assessed parameters
Score
Nutritional
Body condition score lower than the ideal Body condition score higher than the ideal Unavailability of fresh water Problems in feed or water trough cleanliness Absence of permanent shelter Shelter not adequately protects from rain and sun No suitable surface for lying Severe movement restriction Moderate movement restriction Bad cleanliness condition Regular cleanliness condition Pain and/or illness signs without veterinary treatment Veterinary treatment in sick animals Unsupervised access to outside (only for dogs) Severe behavioral restrictions Moderate behavioral restrictions Social isolation Evidence of stereotypies Fear to owner presence
Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular
Comfort
2. Material and methods Animal abuse investigations carried out by the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil, were followed up between April and December 2016. The Animal Protection Division of Pinhais records the complaints, confirms the occurrences and carries out the administrative punishment of cases of animal abuse in the municipality. Depending on the severity, intentionality and compliance of the requests, it notifies the cases to the criminal authorities. In Pinhais, legal terms of animal abuse include physical or sexual aggression, lack of basic care and other aspects that negatively compromise animals’ welfare, whether intentional or unintentional (Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012; Congresso Nacional, 1998). For purposes of the present study, only complaints about neglect or physical abuse in dogs and cats within households were considered. Thus, companion animal abuse was defined as "the intentional, malicious, or irresponsible, as well as unintentional or ignorant, infliction of physiological and/or psychological pain, suffering, deprivation, and the death of a companion animal by humans" (Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Furthermore, cases characterized by the failure of the caregivers to provide basic physical and mental needs were categorized as animal neglect (Merck, 2013). Ethical aspects of this study were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Paraná (SCS/UFPR).
Health
Behavioral
Inadequate Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate
occurrence of animal neglect in all the cases included in this study. After the classification of the indicators, the final decisions were integrated according to the specifications of the protocol on a scale of five degrees: very high (all groups of indicators as adequate), high (one group of indicators as regular, other groups classified as adequate), regular (two or more groups of indicators as regular, other groups classified as adequate), low (one or two groups of indicators as inadequate) and very low (three or four groups of indicators as inadequate). "Low" and "very low" were considered negative categories that represent a poor quality of life and the occurrence of animal neglect (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). The cases with a report of intentional physical aggression by a family member or the neighbors with or without signs compatibles with non-accidental injuries were considered as physical animal abuse.
2.1. Determination of the occurrence of animal abuse A diagnosis of the animal welfare degree based on the five freedoms, was performed to determine the presence of animal neglect. The five freedoms provide the basis for the principal issues of animal abuse by addressing the main inadequacies that can cause animal suffering (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014; Merck, 2013). We followed up the animal abuse investigations of the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais and analyzed the records resulting from the inspection of animal and housing conditions. The protocol for the expert report on animal welfare in case of companion animal cruelty suspicion was also applied (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). This protocol facilitates the recognition of animal abuse in cases where no physical lesion is present. It represents a combination of both mental state and external parameter approaches, considering also the environmental conditions provided to the pets. The presence of inadequacies was determined by giving a score (inadequate, regular or adequate) to four categories of indicators: nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). Only protocol indicators that directly involve the responsibility of the owner were considered (Table 1). Since the objective of this study was not to assess individually the animal welfare degree of the dogs and cats referred to the complaints of animal abuse as indicated in the protocol, we established the inadequacies regarding the care given by their owners to the animals in each group of indicators. Thus, in the case of having more than one dog or cat in a household, a diagnosis of the group of individuals was considered, in this way registering only the lowest classification presented in the animals' evaluation in each category of indicators. We performed the ratings of the inadequacies, the welfare degree and the
2.2. Socioeconomic profile of pet owners In order to identify the socioeconomic profile of the pet owners, during the follow-up of the animal abuse investigations, we collected information regarding the number of residents in the household, gender, age and educational degree of the family members, employment or retirement situation of people over 18 years of age, the presence of people with physical or mental disability, financial difficulties to provide support to family members and the presence of domestic violence. To determine economic difficulties, it was considered the report of economic problems by family members or neighbors, associated with the presence of disorganization and negligence in the maintenance of housing, unhealthy environment in the home due to accumulation of rubbish and garbage for economic activities with recycled material, unemployment, receiving financial assistance from the government and/or the inability to build a physical barrier to prevent access to the property. Specific questions about domestic violence in the family were not posed. However, the spontaneous reports of the presence of domestic violence made by family members or neighbors were recorded. Domestic violence was considered as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person who lives in or has lived in the same household, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This category includes violence between intimate partners or ex-partners, as well as child abuse and elder abuse 20
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
3.2. Characterization of inadequacies according to indicators
within the home, including acts of neglect and omission, and all forms of physical, sexual and psychological abuse (Dahlberg and Krug, 2007; WHO, 1996).
In the 118 analyzed cases, the main failures in the care given to the animals were observed in the comfort and behavioral indicators, being inadequate in 63.6% (n = 75/118) and 50% (n = 59/118) of the cases, respectively. Inadequacies in nutritional indicators were observed in 43.2% (n = 51/118) and in health indicators in 27.1% (n = 32/118) of the cases. Post hoc Tukey comparisons indicated significant differences in health indicators between the households with 1 or 2 animals and more than 10 animals (p < 0.05), as shown in Table 4. Inadequacies in the nutritional and health indicators were significantly associated with the presence of people with disabilities (p < 0.05) and economic difficulties (p < 0.05) in the households, as shown in Table 5.
2.3. Data analysis We used the chi-squared test and the Fishers’ exact test to determine an association between animal neglect and the number of dogs and cats, presence of children or elderly, number of residents, presence of disabled people, owner with low educational level, economic difficulty and domestic violence. Explanatory variables that presented a p-value greater than or equal 0.10 were selected to fit a binomial logistic regression model with the purpose of predicting the presence of animal neglect based on the predictor variables. The Wald tests was used to verify the significance of associations. The Kruskal-Wallis test by ranks was performed to compare the level of care by nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral indicators with all the explanatory variables. Subsequently, the Tukey post-hoc test was used to perform pairwise multiple comparisons and determine the groups that differ. All analyses considered the null hypothesis of no difference (two-tailed) with a significance level of 5% and were performed using the language R (R Core Team, 2017).
4. Discussion In Brazil, as well as in other countries of the world, the highest rates of violence against women, children and the elderly occur within the family environment (Clément et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2007; Franzin et al., 2014; Gadoni-Costa et al., 2011; Slack et al., 2011). Regardless of the affective proximity of dogs and cats to humans, it is not uncommon that these animals suffer abuse within their households (Burchfield, 2016). Nevertheless, few efforts have been made to understand the factors related to animal abuse in the family context. In this research, despite the limitation of having a small number of cases, it is important to highlight the high rate of companion animals who do not receive adequate care by their owners, which is considered a crime in Pinhais, Brazil (Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012; Congresso Nacional, 1998). Thus, animal abuse cases presented 100% of neglect, showing the deficiency in care as the most common type of animal abuse inside the family environment (Crook, 2000; Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2012). This study used a protocol based on the five freedoms to objectively determine the presence of animal neglect (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). It is recognized that the five freedoms emphasize predominantly negative experiences (Vessier et al., 2011), provide the basis for animal abuse (Merck, 2013) and help to support the existence of animal suffering in court decisions in the cases of crimes against animals (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). However, despite selecting the welfare indicators related to the basic care that owners must provide to their companion animals, one limitation was not to consider the severity, cause, and intentionality in the categorization of the presence of animal abuse, essential aspects in the criminal prosecution. Few cases of intentional aggression were identified, which hinders performing statistical analysis of these data. Physical abuse cases may be underreported because of the difficulty of identifying injuries caused by non-accidental trauma during inspections (Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). In this way, violent acts against animals recorded in this study were basically detected by the report of a family member or the neighbors. The occurrence of domestic violence is influenced by demographic, cultural and socioeconomic factors of the victim and the aggressor (Choi and Thomas, 2015; Jones and Logan-Greene, 2016; Slack et al., 2011). Regarding companion animal abuse, these aspects have not yet been clarified. However, it is believed that the care given to dogs and cats, and the acts of aggression are also influenced by the characteristics of their owners (Agnew, 1998; Boat and Knight, 2001; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). An example of this is the higher prevalence of intentional aggression to the animals (Ascione et al., 2007; Newberry, 2016; Williams et al., 2008) and the lack of essential and enrichment care (Fielding 2010) in the households with domestic violence. In this study, violence did not display a dependence on the general analysis of the occurrence of animal neglect. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution, due to the small number of cases of domestic violence detected in the present study.
3. Results A total of 267 animal abuse investigations were carried out by the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais from April to December 2016, being 95.5% (n = 255/267) related to dogs and cats. Of the above, 61.2% (n = 156/255) had information to evaluate the conditions of dogs and cats within households and of these, only in 75.6% (n = 118/ 156) was possible to obtain information of socioeconomic conditions. Of the latter, 94.9% (n = 112/118) were related to dogs, 2.5% (n = 3/ 118) to cats and 2.5% (n = 3/118) to both. During the investigations, in 22% (n = 26/118) of the households was verified the presence of both dogs and cats. In 53.8% (n = 14/26) of these houses was possible to evaluate the welfare of both species, and in 78.6% (n = 11/14) the welfare degree of dogs was lower than the welfare of cats. Of the 118 cases analyzed, 76.3% (n = 90/118) were categorized as animal abuse, all these presenting animal neglect. In 40.7%(n = 48/ 118) of the animals the welfare degree was low and in 35.6% (n = 42/ 118) was very low. In 5.9% (n = 7/118) of the cases the welfare degree was classified as regular, in 12.7% (n = 15/118) high and in 5.1% (n = 6/118) very high. Physical aggression was identified in 6.7% (n = 6/90) of the cases and involved exclusively dogs. 3.1. Factors associated with animal neglect in the family context Descriptive frequencies of Table 2 show that 59.3% (n = 70/118) of the families was constituted by two to four individuals and 10.2% (n = 12/118) by lonely owners. In 83% (n = 39/47) of the cases with presence of children in the households, children were exposed to conditions of animal abuse. Domestic violence had a lowest response rate, which shows the difficulty in detecting this vulnerability. Households with owners poorly educated have 2.73 higher odds of presenting animal abuse (Table 2). The total number of dogs and cats, presence of disabled people, owners with low educational level and presence of economic difficulties were selected to fit a binomial logistic regression model (Table 2). Subsequently, the presence of disabled people (p < 0.05), economic difficulties (p < 0.05) and the number of animals (p < 0.05) were the variables that better fit our regression model of animal neglect. In this way, a household with disabled people (OR:5.99; 95%CI:1.18-30.27) and a household with economic difficulties (OR:5.07; 95%CI:1.0724.08) have higher odds of presenting for animal neglect. Contrary, owners with more than ten animals have lower odds of presenting for animal neglect (OR:0.12; 95%CI:0.02-0.67) (Table 3). 21
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Table 2 Frequency distribution and odds ratios of the socioeconomic variables that could be related to the occurrence of companion animal neglect in Pinhais, Brazil. Variable
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals 3 - 6 animals 7 - 10 animals > 10 animals Presence of children No Yes Presence of elderly No Yes Number of residents 1 person 2 - 4 individuals ≥ 5 individuals Presence of disabled person No Yes Owner with low education level No Yes Economic difficulty No Yes Domestic Violence No Yes Total cases
Animal neglect
No animal neglect
OR
N
%
N
%
35 37 8 10
38.9 41.1 8.9 11.1
13 5 3 7
46.4 17.9 10.7 25.0
51 39
56.7 43.3
20 8
71.4 28.6
57 33
63.3 36.7
21 7
75.0 25.0
10 53 27
11.1 58.9 30.0
2 17 9
7.1 60.7 32.1
64 26
71.1 28.9
24 4
85.7 14.3
2.44
51 38
57.3 42.7
22 6
78.6 21.4
1.00 2.73
63 27
70.0 30.0
25 3
89.3 10.7
79 11 90
87.8 12.2 76.3
27 1 28
96.4 3.6 23.7
CI - 95%
Likelihood -ratio P-value 0.084
2.75 0.99 0.53
0.89–8.51 0.23–4.31 0.17–1.69 0.157
1.91
0.76–4.80 0.246
1.74
0.67–4.52 0.818
0.62 0.60
0.12–3.13 0.11–3.27 0.100 0.77–7.72
a
0.037 1.01–7.39 0.029 3.57
0.99 - 12.84 0.145
3.76
0.46 - 30.47
a
Collected data in 117 cases. OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval.
their animals in animal abuse condition than owners with more than ten animals. These results can be related to the bond of the owner with the animals and the level of knowledge about animal care in the household. Having more than one pet has been previously related in a positive (Meyer and Forkman, 2014) and negative way (Marinelli et al., 2007) to the level of care given to pets and the pet-owner bond. Regarding family size, as well as the presence of children or elderly, no significant difference was found between groups with and without animal neglect. Nevertheless, in 83% (n = 39/47) cases, children were exposed to situations of companion animal abuse. Families are the main agents in the formation of beliefs, attitudes and social values, so it is in the family environment that children internalize social rules and customs (Darie, 2015). In this context, children exposed to animal neglect or aggression may learn that such situations are acceptable ways of treating pets. On the other hand, the association between animal neglect and the presence of disabled people may be produced by stress aspects in the family (Cruz and Albuquerque, 2013) and the great demands for attention generated by a disabled person. The educational level of owners was associated with the occurrence of animal neglect, which coincides with that reported in previous studies of child neglect (Dubowitz et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011). This aspect has been explained by the role of the education in the perception of abuse. In this sense, people with a low educational level cannot consider some actions related to punishment or deprivation as acts of aggression or child neglect (Choi and Thomas, 2015). In this way, pet neglect could be related to a lack of knowledge about animal welfare, animal care (Adamelli et al., 2005; Ramón et al., 2010; Yimer et al., 2012), as well as social and cultural acceptance of practices that inherently affect the quality of life of animals. Contrary, some studies have found a relationship between having higher education and provide poor care to companion animals (Marinelli et al., 2007). The main inadequacies found during this study were related to comfort and behavioral indicators, being consistent with other reports
Table 3 Logistic regression for the occurrence of companion animal neglect of the cases investigated by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Variable
OR
CI - 95%
Wald test P-value
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals 3 - 6 animals 7 - 10 animals > 10 animals Economic difficulties Presence of disabled person
2.72 0.71 0.12 5.07 5.99
0.85–8.69 0.14– 3.49 0.02– 0.67 1.07– 24.08 1.18–30.27
0.092 0.669 0.016 0.041 0.030
OR: Adjusted Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval.
The family is the primary provider of animal care and has the obligation to supply the needs of their pets. In this way, socioeconomic conditions do not exempt the owners from their responsibility. However, the understanding of factors related to abuse and neglect in dogs and cats in the households is extremely important for the development of actions to improve the quality of life of people and animals in situations of socioeconomic disadvantages. In this study, the economic situation of the owners showed an association with the occurrence of companion animals neglect. The economic problems of caregivers have often been related to the abandonment of companion animals (Salman et al., 1998; Scarlett et al., 1999). Other studies have reported a high prevalence of dog fighting, cruel acts against animals and lack of veterinary assistance in economically vulnerable regions (Burchfield, 2016; Freiwald et al., 2014; Hodgson and Darling, 2011; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). It was observed that dogs and cats from households with one or two animals had a better health condition compared to the group with more than ten animals. These pets had better veterinary and preventive care. However, owners with one or two animals had higher odds to have 22
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Table 4 Inadequacies of the indicators according to the number of companion animals in the households of the animal abuse investigations carried out by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Indicator
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals
Nutritional Inadequate Regular Adequate Comfort Inadequate Regular Adequate Health Inadequate Regular Adequate Behavioral Inadequate Regular Adequate Total
3 - 6 animals
7 - 10 animals
KruskalWallis P-Value
> 10 animals
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
15 8 25
31.3 16.7 52.1
20 7 15
47.6 16.7 35.7
7 1 3
63.6 9.1 27.3
9 1 7
52.9 5.9 41.2
28 10 10
58.3 20.8 20.8
31 4 7
73.8 9.5 16.7
7 2 2
63.6 18.8 18.2
9 6 2
52.9 35.3 17.8
9 11 28
18.8 22.9 58.3
12 11 19
28.6 26.2 45.2
3 4 4
27.3 36.4 36.4
8 6 3
47.1 35.3 17.6
23 3 22 48
47.9 6.3 45.8 40.7
23 3 16 42
54.8 7.1 38.1 35.6
6 1 4 11
54.5 9.1 36.4 9.3
7 2 8 17
41.2 11.8 47.1 14.4
0.082
0.694
0.015*
0.783
*Post-hoc Tukey test significance difference between households with 1–2 animals and > 10 animals. Table 5 Inadequacies of the indicators according to the educational level, presence of disabled person and economic difficulty present in the households of the animal abuse investigations carried out by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Indicator
Low educational level Yes
Nutritional Inadequate Regular Adequate Comfort Inadequate Regular Adequate Health Inadequate Regular Adequate Behavioral Inadequate Regular Adequate Total
PValue
No
Presence of disabled person Yes
N
%
N
%
25 5 14
56.8 11.4 31.8
25 12 36
34.2 16.4 49.3
29 8 7
65.9 18.2 15.9
45 14 14
61.6 19.2 19.2
16 11 17
36.4 25.0 38.6
16 20 37
21.9 27.4 50.7
23 3 18 44
52.3 6.8 40.9 37.6
35 6 32 73
47.9 8.2 43.8 62.4
PValue
Economic difficulty Yes
No
N
%
N
%
19 4 7
63.3 13.3 23.3
32 12 43
36.4 14.8 48.9
23 6 1
76.7 20 3.3
52 16 20
59.1 18.2 22.7
15 9 6
50 30 20
17 23 48
19.3 26.1 54.5
16 2 12 30
53.3 6.7 40 25.4
43 7 38 88
48.9 7.9 43.2 74.6
0.06
PValue
No
N
%
N
%
21 3 6
70.0 10.0 20.0
30 14 44
34.1 15.9 50
23 4 3
76.7 13.3 10.0
52 18 18
59.1 20.5 20.5
14 6 10
46.7 20.0 33.3
18 26 44
20.5 29.5 50
15 4 11 30
50.0 13.3 36.7 25.4
44 5 39 88
50 5.7 44.3 74.6
0.02
0.88
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.21
0.001
0.95
0.02
0.94
0.35
adequate care for their pets in Pinhais, Brazil. It was found that the number of dogs and cats at home, the educational level of owners, economic difficulties and the presence of disabled people are factors associated with the occurrence of animal neglect. In this study, there were limitations in the study design, sample size and the identification of domestic violence. Despite this, the results have important implications for the understanding of the factors related to negligence in dogs and cats. Future studies should evaluate other factors that may be related to the occurrence of dogs and cats abuse, such as the humananimal bond, cultural beliefs, and family values.
from the United States and South Africa, in which the largest failures were related to housing conditions (Donley et al., 1999; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Nevertheless, it is important to consider that a significant number of households in Pinhais did not supply nutritional and health needs, such as water, food, and treatment of diseases. Considering the relevance of the knowledge about the needs of companion animals, family intervention strategies for the prevention and control of animal neglect should be directed to increment the awareness of the families about this problem. In this way, the development of educational programs in the communities is fundamental to improve the welfare of companion animals (Mariti et al., 2011; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993).
Conflict of interest 5. Conclusion The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. All cases of dogs and cats abuse corresponded to situations of animal neglect, evidencing that it is common for owners not to provide 23
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Acknowledgments
levantamento dos casos atendidos no setor de psicologia de una delegacia para a mulher. Estud. Psicol. 28, 219–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103166X2011000200009. Hammerschmidt, J., Molento, C.F.M., 2014. Protocol for expert report on animal welfare in case of companion animal cruelty suspicion. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 51, 282–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.1678-4456.v51i4p282-296. Hammerschmidt, J., Molento, C.F.M., 2012. Análise retrospectiva de denúncias de maustratos contra animais na região de Curitiba, Estado do Paraná, utilizando critérios de bem-estar animal. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 49, 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10. 11606/issn.1678-4456.v49i6p431-441. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., Dutkiewicz, E.L., 2010. Childhood bestiality: a potential precursor to adult interpersonal violence. J. Interpers. Violence 25, 557–567. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509360988. Hodgson, K., Darling, M., 2011. Pets in the family: practical approaches. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 47, 299–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-5695. Jones, A., Logan-Greene, P., 2016. Understanding and responding to chronic neglect: a mixed methods case record examination. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 67, 212–219. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.011. Li, F., Godinet, M.T., Arnsberger, P., 2011. Protective factors among families with children at risk of maltreatment: follow up to early school years. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 33, 139–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.026. Marinelli, L., Adamelli, S., Normando, S., Bono, G., 2007. Quality of life of the pet dog: influence of owner and dog’s characteristics. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 108, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018. Mariti, C., Papi, F., Mengoli, M., Moretti, G., Martelli, F., Gazzano, A., 2011. Improvement in children’s humaneness toward nonhuman animals through a project of educational anthrozoology. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 6, 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jveb.2010.07.003. Marlet, E.F., Maiorka, P.C., 2010. Análise retrospectiva de casos de maus tratos contra cães e gatos na cidade de São Paulo. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 47, 385–394. Mardones, F.O., Hernandez-Jover, M., Berezowski, J., Lindberg, A., Marzet, J.A.K., Morris, R.S., 2016. Veterinary epidemiology: forging a path toward one health. Prev. Vet. Med. 137, 147–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.022. Merck, M.D., 2013. Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, second ed. Blackwell Publishing, Iowa. Meyer, I., Forkman, B., 2014. Dog and owner characteristics affecting the dog-owner relationship. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 9, 143–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jveb.2014.03.002. Monsalve, S., Ferreira, F., Garcia, R., 2017. The connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: a review from the veterinary perspective. Res. Vet. Sci. 114, 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.02.025. Nathanson, J.N., 2009. Animal hoarding: slipping into the darkness of comorbid animal and self-neglect. J. Elder Abuse Negl. 21, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 08946560903004839. Newberry, M., 2016. Pets in danger: exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. Aggress. Violent Behav. 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016. 11.007. Pérez-Cárceles, M.D., Rubio, L., Pereniguez, J.E., Pérez-Flores, D., Osuna, E., Luna, A., 2009. Suspicion of elder abuse in South Eastern Spain: the extent and risk factors. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 132–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2008.06. 002. Polo, G., Calderón, N., Clothier, S., Garcia, R.D.C.M., 2015. Understanding dog aggression: epidemiologic aspects. In memoriam, Rudy de Meester (1953-2012). J. Vet. Behav: Clin. Appl. Res. 10 (6), 525–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.09. 003. R Core Team, 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundationfor Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Ramón, M.E., Slater, M.R., Ward, M.P., 2010. Companion animal knowledge, attachment and pet cat care and their associations with household demographics for residents of a rural Texas town. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 251–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. prevetmed.2010.01.008. Salman, M.D., New, J.G., Scarlett, J.M., Kris, P., 1998. Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1, 207–226. Scarlett, J.M., Salman, M.D., New, J.G., Kass, P., 1999. Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: selected health and personal issues. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2, 47–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0201. Sidebotham, P., Heron, J., 2006. Child maltreatment in the “children of the nineties”: a cohort study of risk factors. Child Abuse Negl. 30, 497–522. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.005. Silva, A.J., Guilloux, A.G., Zetun, C.B., Polo, G., Braga, G.B., Panachão, L.I., Santos, O., Dias, R.A., 2013. Abandono de cães na América Latina: revisão de literatura. Revista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SP 11 (2), 34–41. Slack, K.S., Berger, L.M., DuMont, K., Yang, M., Kim, B., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., Holl, J.L., 2011. Risk and protective factors for child neglect during early childhood: a crossstudy comparison. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 33, 1354–1363. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.024. Vermeulen, H., Odendaal, J.S.J., 1993. Proposed typology of companion animal abuse. Anthrozoos A Multidiscip. J. Interact. People Anim. 6, 248–257. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2752/089279393787002178. Vessier, I., Jensen, K.K., Botreau, R., Sandoe, P., 2011. Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the welfare quality® scheme. Anim. Welf. 20, 89–101. Vieira, L.J.E.D.S., Pordeus, A.M.J., Ferreira, R.C., Moreira, D.P., Maia, P.B., Saviolli, K.C., 2008. Fatores de risco para violência contra a mulher no contexto doméstico e
The authors would like to sincerely thank to the Animal Protection Division of the Department of Environment of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil for allowing the development of this study. References Adamelli, S., Marinelli, L., Normando, S., Bono, G., 2005. Owner and cat features influence the quality of life of the cat. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 94, 89–98. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.003. Agnew, R., 1998. The causes of animal abuse: asocial-psychological analysis. Theor. Criminol. 2, 177–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362480698002002003. Allen, M., Gallagher, B., Jones, B., 2006. Domestic violence and the abuse of pets: researching the link and its implications in Ireland. Practice 18, 167–181. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/09503150600904060. Arkow, P., 2013. The impact of companion animals on social capital and community violence: setting research, policy and program agendas. J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 40, 33–55. Arkow, P., 2015. Recognizing and responding to cases of suspected animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect: what the veterinarian needs to know. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 6, 349–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S87198. Ascione, F.R., Weber, C.V., Thompson, T.M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., Hayashi, K., 2007. Battered pets and domestic violence: animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women 13, 354–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201. Benetato, M.A., Reisman, R., McCobb, E., 2011. The veterinarian’s role in animal cruelty cases. JAVMA 238 (1), 31–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.238.1.31. Boat, B.W., Knight, J.C., 2001. Experiences and needs of adult protective services case managers when assisting clients who have companion animals. J. Elder Abuse Negl. 12, 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J084v12n03. Burchfield, K.B., 2016. The sociology of animal crime: an examination of incidents and arrests in Chicago. Deviant Behav. 37, 368–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01639625.2015.1026769. Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012. Lei municipal 1356 – Dispõe sobre a proteção e bemestar animal, a prevenção e o controle de zoonoses no município de pinhais e dá outras providências. Brazil. . Choi, J.B., Thomas, M., 2015. Perceptual difference of child neglect among Korean parents and children: implications for child welfare policy. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 55, 56–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.011. Clément, M., Bérubé, A., Chamberland, C., 2016. Prevalence and risk factors of child neglect in the general population. Public Health 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. puhe.2016.03.018. Cohen, S.P., 2002. Can pets function as family members? West. J. Nurs. Res. 24, 621–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019394502236636. Congresso Nacional, 1998. Lei nº 9.605 – Dispõe sobre as sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Brazil. . Costa, M.C.O., De Carvalho, R.C., Santa Bárbara, J.F.R., Santos, C.A.S.T., Gomes, W.A., De Sousa, H.L., 2007. O perfil da violência contra crianças e adolescentes, segundo registros de Conselhos Tutelares: vítimas, agressores e manifestações de violência. Cien. Saude Colet. 12, 1129–1141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S141381232007000500010. Crook, A., 2000. The CVMA animal abuse position - how we got here. Can. Vet. J. 41, 631–633. Cruz, V., Albuquerque, C.P., 2013. Maus-tratos em crianças e adolescentes com deficiência e/ou perturbações do desenvolvimento. Rev. Bras. Educ. Espec. 19, 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382013000100002. Dahlberg, L., Krug, E., 2007. Violência: um problema global de saúde pública. Cien. Saude Colet. 11, 1163–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232006000500007. Darie, N., 2015. Child’s exposures to emotional neglect in drug users families. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 180, 1590–1598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.312. Donley, L., Patronek, G.J., Luke, C., 1999. Animal abuse in Massachusetts: a summary of case reports at the MSPCA and attitudes of Massachusetts veterinarians. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2, 59–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0201_5. Dubowitz, H., Kim, J., Black, M.M., Weisbart, C., Semiatin, J., Magder, L.S., 2011. Identifying children at high risk for a child maltreatment report. Child Abuse Negl. 35, 96–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.09.003. Faraco, C.B., 2008. Interaçao humano-animal. Ciência veterinária nos trópicos 11, 31–35. Fielding, W.J., 2010. Domestic violence and dog care in New Providence, The Bahamas. Soc. Anim. 18, 183–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853010X492024. Flynn, C.P., 2000. Battered women and their animal companions: symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Soc. Anim. 8, 99–127. Franzin, L., Olandovski, M., Vettorazzi, M., Werneck, R., Moysés, S., Kusma, S., Moysés, S., 2014. Child and adolescent abuse and neglect in the city of Curitiba. Braz. Child Abuse Negl. 38, 1706–1714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.003. Freiwald, A., Litster, A., Weng, H.Y., 2014. Survey to investigate pet ownership and attitudes to pet care in metropolitan Chicago dog and/or cat owners. Prev. Vet. Med. 115, 198–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.025. Friedmann, E., Son, H., 2009. The human-companion animal bond: how humans benefit. Vet. Clin. North Am. - Small Anim. Pract. 39, 293–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cvsm.2008.10.015. Gadoni-Costa, L.M., Zucatti, A.P.N., Dell’Aglio, D.D., 2011. Violência contra a mulher:
24
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
and their understanding of the correlation between animal abuse and human violence. N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36800. Yimer, E., Mesfin, A., Beyene, M., Bekele, A., Taye, G., Zewdie, B., Alemayehu, T., 2012. Study on knowledge, attitude and dog ownership patterns related to rabies prevention and control in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J. 16, 27–39. http://dx.doi. org/10.4314/evj.v16i2.3.
coletivo. Saude e Soc. 17, 113–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S010412902008000300012. WHO, 1996. World Health Organization. WHO Global Consultation on Violence and Health. Violence: a Public Health Priority. Genoveva. . Williams, V.M., Dale, A.R., Clarke, N., Garrett, N.K.G., 2008. Animal abuse and family violence: survey on the recognition of animal abuse by veterinarians in New Zealand
25
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Preventive Veterinary Medicine journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/prevetmed
Associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in Pinhais, Brazil
T
⁎
Stefany Monsalvea, , Janaina Hammerschmidtb, Michele Lopes Izarb, Solange Marconcinb, Fernanda Rizzatoc, Gina Polod, Rita Garciaa a
Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Veterinárias, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua dos Funcionários 1540, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil Seção de Defesa e Proteção Animal, Rodovia Deputado João Leopoldo Jacomel 11427, Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil c Laboratório de Estatística, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Rua Evaristo F. Ferreira da Costa, 418, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil d Laboratório de Epidemiologia e Bioestatística, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. Prof. Dr. Orlando Marques de Paiva, 87, Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP, Brazil b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Animal abuse Physical abuse Multispecies household Animal welfare Associated factors
Dogs and cats are often abused within households. Despite this, little research has been developed to know the factors associated with this crime. The objective of this study was to identify the associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment. We followed up the records of animal abuse investigations of the Protection Animal Division of the city of Pinhais, Brazil. Socioeconomic factors about the owners and four types of indicators: nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral were considered. A binomial logistic regression model was fitted with the purpose of predicting the presence of animal neglect based on predictor variables. The number of animals in the household, disadvantageous economic conditions, the presence of disabled people and a low educational level of the owners were identified as associated factors of animal neglect. Understanding the factors related to the occurrence of animal neglect is fundamental for the development of multidisciplinary preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of this crime.
1. Introduction Multispecies households are evidence of a close relationship between humans and animals. People can create strong emotional attachments to dogs and cats (Cohen, 2002) and recognize them as family members (Flynn, 2000). In the family context, human-animal interactions may be mutually beneficial to the well-being of the individuals involved in such interplay (Faraco, 2008; Friedmann and Son, 2009; Hodgson and Darling, 2011). However, dysfunctional and negative relationships, such as animal abuse, can emerge in this environment (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014, 2012; Hensley et al., 2010; Nathanson, 2009; Polo et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2013). The occurrence of companion animal abuse is a universal phenomenon, often underestimated and considered as an isolated and unimportant problem in the social context (Arkow, 2013; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Nevertheless, in recent years the societal demand to prosecute the crimes against animals has increased (Burchfield, 2016; Marlet and Maiorka, 2010). Likewise, the interest of the scientific community in investigating this type of crime and including it in the domestic violence context and in the field of public health is evident
⁎
(Allen et al., 2006; Ascione et al., 2007; Fielding, 2010). Veterinarians have a responsibility with the promotion of the wellbeing of people and animals (Mardones et al., 2016) and fill critical roles in the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty cases (Benetato et al., 2011). Determining the cause, severity and duration of animal's injuries (or death), as well as the extent to which the animal suffered or experienced pain, are important legal elements of animal abuse cases (Benetato et al., 2011). These elements cannot be established without the expertise of a veterinarian who has examined or treated these victims (Benetato et al., 2011). In this context, the role of the veterinarians includes the recognition and prevention of animal abuse to advocate for animals’ welfare and/or intervene in the interpersonal violence, considering that animal abuse can serve as a sentinel of violence in society (Arkow, 2015; Monsalve et al., 2017). The highest rates of violence against women, children, young people and the elderly occur in the home environment (Costa et al., 2007; Franzin et al., 2014; Slack et al., 2011). In addition, it is known that socioeconomic, environmental, family and individual factors of the victim and the aggressor contribute to the existence of various types of abuse (PérezCárceles et al., 2009; Sidebotham and Heron, 2006; Vieira et al., 2008).
Corresponding author at: Universidade Federal do Paraná, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária, Rua dos Funcionários, 1540, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Monsalve), [email protected] (J. Hammerschmidt), [email protected] (M.L. Izar), [email protected] (S. Marconcin), [email protected] (F. Rizzato), [email protected] (G. Polo), [email protected] (R. Garcia). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.05.017 Received 10 December 2017; Received in revised form 20 May 2018; Accepted 27 May 2018 0167-5877/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
In the same way, some studies report a high occurrence of animal abuse within households (Ascione et al., 2007; Burchfield, 2016), but little attention has been directed to the identification of the factors associated with abuse of dogs and cats in the family environment. Understanding individual, family and socioeconomic factors that positively and negatively influence the human-animal bond is important for the development of multidisciplinary preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of companion animal abuse. The objective of this study was to establish the associated factors of companion animal neglect in the family environment in the city of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil.
Table 1 Indicators selected of Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014 to evaluate the animal welfare degree in the companion animal complaints investigated by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Type of indicator
Assessed parameters
Score
Nutritional
Body condition score lower than the ideal Body condition score higher than the ideal Unavailability of fresh water Problems in feed or water trough cleanliness Absence of permanent shelter Shelter not adequately protects from rain and sun No suitable surface for lying Severe movement restriction Moderate movement restriction Bad cleanliness condition Regular cleanliness condition Pain and/or illness signs without veterinary treatment Veterinary treatment in sick animals Unsupervised access to outside (only for dogs) Severe behavioral restrictions Moderate behavioral restrictions Social isolation Evidence of stereotypies Fear to owner presence
Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular
Comfort
2. Material and methods Animal abuse investigations carried out by the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil, were followed up between April and December 2016. The Animal Protection Division of Pinhais records the complaints, confirms the occurrences and carries out the administrative punishment of cases of animal abuse in the municipality. Depending on the severity, intentionality and compliance of the requests, it notifies the cases to the criminal authorities. In Pinhais, legal terms of animal abuse include physical or sexual aggression, lack of basic care and other aspects that negatively compromise animals’ welfare, whether intentional or unintentional (Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012; Congresso Nacional, 1998). For purposes of the present study, only complaints about neglect or physical abuse in dogs and cats within households were considered. Thus, companion animal abuse was defined as "the intentional, malicious, or irresponsible, as well as unintentional or ignorant, infliction of physiological and/or psychological pain, suffering, deprivation, and the death of a companion animal by humans" (Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Furthermore, cases characterized by the failure of the caregivers to provide basic physical and mental needs were categorized as animal neglect (Merck, 2013). Ethical aspects of this study were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Paraná (SCS/UFPR).
Health
Behavioral
Inadequate Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Regular Regular Inadequate Regular Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate
occurrence of animal neglect in all the cases included in this study. After the classification of the indicators, the final decisions were integrated according to the specifications of the protocol on a scale of five degrees: very high (all groups of indicators as adequate), high (one group of indicators as regular, other groups classified as adequate), regular (two or more groups of indicators as regular, other groups classified as adequate), low (one or two groups of indicators as inadequate) and very low (three or four groups of indicators as inadequate). "Low" and "very low" were considered negative categories that represent a poor quality of life and the occurrence of animal neglect (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). The cases with a report of intentional physical aggression by a family member or the neighbors with or without signs compatibles with non-accidental injuries were considered as physical animal abuse.
2.1. Determination of the occurrence of animal abuse A diagnosis of the animal welfare degree based on the five freedoms, was performed to determine the presence of animal neglect. The five freedoms provide the basis for the principal issues of animal abuse by addressing the main inadequacies that can cause animal suffering (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014; Merck, 2013). We followed up the animal abuse investigations of the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais and analyzed the records resulting from the inspection of animal and housing conditions. The protocol for the expert report on animal welfare in case of companion animal cruelty suspicion was also applied (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). This protocol facilitates the recognition of animal abuse in cases where no physical lesion is present. It represents a combination of both mental state and external parameter approaches, considering also the environmental conditions provided to the pets. The presence of inadequacies was determined by giving a score (inadequate, regular or adequate) to four categories of indicators: nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). Only protocol indicators that directly involve the responsibility of the owner were considered (Table 1). Since the objective of this study was not to assess individually the animal welfare degree of the dogs and cats referred to the complaints of animal abuse as indicated in the protocol, we established the inadequacies regarding the care given by their owners to the animals in each group of indicators. Thus, in the case of having more than one dog or cat in a household, a diagnosis of the group of individuals was considered, in this way registering only the lowest classification presented in the animals' evaluation in each category of indicators. We performed the ratings of the inadequacies, the welfare degree and the
2.2. Socioeconomic profile of pet owners In order to identify the socioeconomic profile of the pet owners, during the follow-up of the animal abuse investigations, we collected information regarding the number of residents in the household, gender, age and educational degree of the family members, employment or retirement situation of people over 18 years of age, the presence of people with physical or mental disability, financial difficulties to provide support to family members and the presence of domestic violence. To determine economic difficulties, it was considered the report of economic problems by family members or neighbors, associated with the presence of disorganization and negligence in the maintenance of housing, unhealthy environment in the home due to accumulation of rubbish and garbage for economic activities with recycled material, unemployment, receiving financial assistance from the government and/or the inability to build a physical barrier to prevent access to the property. Specific questions about domestic violence in the family were not posed. However, the spontaneous reports of the presence of domestic violence made by family members or neighbors were recorded. Domestic violence was considered as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person who lives in or has lived in the same household, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. This category includes violence between intimate partners or ex-partners, as well as child abuse and elder abuse 20
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
3.2. Characterization of inadequacies according to indicators
within the home, including acts of neglect and omission, and all forms of physical, sexual and psychological abuse (Dahlberg and Krug, 2007; WHO, 1996).
In the 118 analyzed cases, the main failures in the care given to the animals were observed in the comfort and behavioral indicators, being inadequate in 63.6% (n = 75/118) and 50% (n = 59/118) of the cases, respectively. Inadequacies in nutritional indicators were observed in 43.2% (n = 51/118) and in health indicators in 27.1% (n = 32/118) of the cases. Post hoc Tukey comparisons indicated significant differences in health indicators between the households with 1 or 2 animals and more than 10 animals (p < 0.05), as shown in Table 4. Inadequacies in the nutritional and health indicators were significantly associated with the presence of people with disabilities (p < 0.05) and economic difficulties (p < 0.05) in the households, as shown in Table 5.
2.3. Data analysis We used the chi-squared test and the Fishers’ exact test to determine an association between animal neglect and the number of dogs and cats, presence of children or elderly, number of residents, presence of disabled people, owner with low educational level, economic difficulty and domestic violence. Explanatory variables that presented a p-value greater than or equal 0.10 were selected to fit a binomial logistic regression model with the purpose of predicting the presence of animal neglect based on the predictor variables. The Wald tests was used to verify the significance of associations. The Kruskal-Wallis test by ranks was performed to compare the level of care by nutritional, comfort, health and behavioral indicators with all the explanatory variables. Subsequently, the Tukey post-hoc test was used to perform pairwise multiple comparisons and determine the groups that differ. All analyses considered the null hypothesis of no difference (two-tailed) with a significance level of 5% and were performed using the language R (R Core Team, 2017).
4. Discussion In Brazil, as well as in other countries of the world, the highest rates of violence against women, children and the elderly occur within the family environment (Clément et al., 2016; Costa et al., 2007; Franzin et al., 2014; Gadoni-Costa et al., 2011; Slack et al., 2011). Regardless of the affective proximity of dogs and cats to humans, it is not uncommon that these animals suffer abuse within their households (Burchfield, 2016). Nevertheless, few efforts have been made to understand the factors related to animal abuse in the family context. In this research, despite the limitation of having a small number of cases, it is important to highlight the high rate of companion animals who do not receive adequate care by their owners, which is considered a crime in Pinhais, Brazil (Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012; Congresso Nacional, 1998). Thus, animal abuse cases presented 100% of neglect, showing the deficiency in care as the most common type of animal abuse inside the family environment (Crook, 2000; Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2012). This study used a protocol based on the five freedoms to objectively determine the presence of animal neglect (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). It is recognized that the five freedoms emphasize predominantly negative experiences (Vessier et al., 2011), provide the basis for animal abuse (Merck, 2013) and help to support the existence of animal suffering in court decisions in the cases of crimes against animals (Hammerschmidt and Molento, 2014). However, despite selecting the welfare indicators related to the basic care that owners must provide to their companion animals, one limitation was not to consider the severity, cause, and intentionality in the categorization of the presence of animal abuse, essential aspects in the criminal prosecution. Few cases of intentional aggression were identified, which hinders performing statistical analysis of these data. Physical abuse cases may be underreported because of the difficulty of identifying injuries caused by non-accidental trauma during inspections (Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). In this way, violent acts against animals recorded in this study were basically detected by the report of a family member or the neighbors. The occurrence of domestic violence is influenced by demographic, cultural and socioeconomic factors of the victim and the aggressor (Choi and Thomas, 2015; Jones and Logan-Greene, 2016; Slack et al., 2011). Regarding companion animal abuse, these aspects have not yet been clarified. However, it is believed that the care given to dogs and cats, and the acts of aggression are also influenced by the characteristics of their owners (Agnew, 1998; Boat and Knight, 2001; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). An example of this is the higher prevalence of intentional aggression to the animals (Ascione et al., 2007; Newberry, 2016; Williams et al., 2008) and the lack of essential and enrichment care (Fielding 2010) in the households with domestic violence. In this study, violence did not display a dependence on the general analysis of the occurrence of animal neglect. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution, due to the small number of cases of domestic violence detected in the present study.
3. Results A total of 267 animal abuse investigations were carried out by the Animal Protection Division of Pinhais from April to December 2016, being 95.5% (n = 255/267) related to dogs and cats. Of the above, 61.2% (n = 156/255) had information to evaluate the conditions of dogs and cats within households and of these, only in 75.6% (n = 118/ 156) was possible to obtain information of socioeconomic conditions. Of the latter, 94.9% (n = 112/118) were related to dogs, 2.5% (n = 3/ 118) to cats and 2.5% (n = 3/118) to both. During the investigations, in 22% (n = 26/118) of the households was verified the presence of both dogs and cats. In 53.8% (n = 14/26) of these houses was possible to evaluate the welfare of both species, and in 78.6% (n = 11/14) the welfare degree of dogs was lower than the welfare of cats. Of the 118 cases analyzed, 76.3% (n = 90/118) were categorized as animal abuse, all these presenting animal neglect. In 40.7%(n = 48/ 118) of the animals the welfare degree was low and in 35.6% (n = 42/ 118) was very low. In 5.9% (n = 7/118) of the cases the welfare degree was classified as regular, in 12.7% (n = 15/118) high and in 5.1% (n = 6/118) very high. Physical aggression was identified in 6.7% (n = 6/90) of the cases and involved exclusively dogs. 3.1. Factors associated with animal neglect in the family context Descriptive frequencies of Table 2 show that 59.3% (n = 70/118) of the families was constituted by two to four individuals and 10.2% (n = 12/118) by lonely owners. In 83% (n = 39/47) of the cases with presence of children in the households, children were exposed to conditions of animal abuse. Domestic violence had a lowest response rate, which shows the difficulty in detecting this vulnerability. Households with owners poorly educated have 2.73 higher odds of presenting animal abuse (Table 2). The total number of dogs and cats, presence of disabled people, owners with low educational level and presence of economic difficulties were selected to fit a binomial logistic regression model (Table 2). Subsequently, the presence of disabled people (p < 0.05), economic difficulties (p < 0.05) and the number of animals (p < 0.05) were the variables that better fit our regression model of animal neglect. In this way, a household with disabled people (OR:5.99; 95%CI:1.18-30.27) and a household with economic difficulties (OR:5.07; 95%CI:1.0724.08) have higher odds of presenting for animal neglect. Contrary, owners with more than ten animals have lower odds of presenting for animal neglect (OR:0.12; 95%CI:0.02-0.67) (Table 3). 21
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Table 2 Frequency distribution and odds ratios of the socioeconomic variables that could be related to the occurrence of companion animal neglect in Pinhais, Brazil. Variable
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals 3 - 6 animals 7 - 10 animals > 10 animals Presence of children No Yes Presence of elderly No Yes Number of residents 1 person 2 - 4 individuals ≥ 5 individuals Presence of disabled person No Yes Owner with low education level No Yes Economic difficulty No Yes Domestic Violence No Yes Total cases
Animal neglect
No animal neglect
OR
N
%
N
%
35 37 8 10
38.9 41.1 8.9 11.1
13 5 3 7
46.4 17.9 10.7 25.0
51 39
56.7 43.3
20 8
71.4 28.6
57 33
63.3 36.7
21 7
75.0 25.0
10 53 27
11.1 58.9 30.0
2 17 9
7.1 60.7 32.1
64 26
71.1 28.9
24 4
85.7 14.3
2.44
51 38
57.3 42.7
22 6
78.6 21.4
1.00 2.73
63 27
70.0 30.0
25 3
89.3 10.7
79 11 90
87.8 12.2 76.3
27 1 28
96.4 3.6 23.7
CI - 95%
Likelihood -ratio P-value 0.084
2.75 0.99 0.53
0.89–8.51 0.23–4.31 0.17–1.69 0.157
1.91
0.76–4.80 0.246
1.74
0.67–4.52 0.818
0.62 0.60
0.12–3.13 0.11–3.27 0.100 0.77–7.72
a
0.037 1.01–7.39 0.029 3.57
0.99 - 12.84 0.145
3.76
0.46 - 30.47
a
Collected data in 117 cases. OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval.
their animals in animal abuse condition than owners with more than ten animals. These results can be related to the bond of the owner with the animals and the level of knowledge about animal care in the household. Having more than one pet has been previously related in a positive (Meyer and Forkman, 2014) and negative way (Marinelli et al., 2007) to the level of care given to pets and the pet-owner bond. Regarding family size, as well as the presence of children or elderly, no significant difference was found between groups with and without animal neglect. Nevertheless, in 83% (n = 39/47) cases, children were exposed to situations of companion animal abuse. Families are the main agents in the formation of beliefs, attitudes and social values, so it is in the family environment that children internalize social rules and customs (Darie, 2015). In this context, children exposed to animal neglect or aggression may learn that such situations are acceptable ways of treating pets. On the other hand, the association between animal neglect and the presence of disabled people may be produced by stress aspects in the family (Cruz and Albuquerque, 2013) and the great demands for attention generated by a disabled person. The educational level of owners was associated with the occurrence of animal neglect, which coincides with that reported in previous studies of child neglect (Dubowitz et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011). This aspect has been explained by the role of the education in the perception of abuse. In this sense, people with a low educational level cannot consider some actions related to punishment or deprivation as acts of aggression or child neglect (Choi and Thomas, 2015). In this way, pet neglect could be related to a lack of knowledge about animal welfare, animal care (Adamelli et al., 2005; Ramón et al., 2010; Yimer et al., 2012), as well as social and cultural acceptance of practices that inherently affect the quality of life of animals. Contrary, some studies have found a relationship between having higher education and provide poor care to companion animals (Marinelli et al., 2007). The main inadequacies found during this study were related to comfort and behavioral indicators, being consistent with other reports
Table 3 Logistic regression for the occurrence of companion animal neglect of the cases investigated by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Variable
OR
CI - 95%
Wald test P-value
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals 3 - 6 animals 7 - 10 animals > 10 animals Economic difficulties Presence of disabled person
2.72 0.71 0.12 5.07 5.99
0.85–8.69 0.14– 3.49 0.02– 0.67 1.07– 24.08 1.18–30.27
0.092 0.669 0.016 0.041 0.030
OR: Adjusted Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval.
The family is the primary provider of animal care and has the obligation to supply the needs of their pets. In this way, socioeconomic conditions do not exempt the owners from their responsibility. However, the understanding of factors related to abuse and neglect in dogs and cats in the households is extremely important for the development of actions to improve the quality of life of people and animals in situations of socioeconomic disadvantages. In this study, the economic situation of the owners showed an association with the occurrence of companion animals neglect. The economic problems of caregivers have often been related to the abandonment of companion animals (Salman et al., 1998; Scarlett et al., 1999). Other studies have reported a high prevalence of dog fighting, cruel acts against animals and lack of veterinary assistance in economically vulnerable regions (Burchfield, 2016; Freiwald et al., 2014; Hodgson and Darling, 2011; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). It was observed that dogs and cats from households with one or two animals had a better health condition compared to the group with more than ten animals. These pets had better veterinary and preventive care. However, owners with one or two animals had higher odds to have 22
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Table 4 Inadequacies of the indicators according to the number of companion animals in the households of the animal abuse investigations carried out by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Indicator
Number of dogs and cats 1 - 2 animals
Nutritional Inadequate Regular Adequate Comfort Inadequate Regular Adequate Health Inadequate Regular Adequate Behavioral Inadequate Regular Adequate Total
3 - 6 animals
7 - 10 animals
KruskalWallis P-Value
> 10 animals
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
15 8 25
31.3 16.7 52.1
20 7 15
47.6 16.7 35.7
7 1 3
63.6 9.1 27.3
9 1 7
52.9 5.9 41.2
28 10 10
58.3 20.8 20.8
31 4 7
73.8 9.5 16.7
7 2 2
63.6 18.8 18.2
9 6 2
52.9 35.3 17.8
9 11 28
18.8 22.9 58.3
12 11 19
28.6 26.2 45.2
3 4 4
27.3 36.4 36.4
8 6 3
47.1 35.3 17.6
23 3 22 48
47.9 6.3 45.8 40.7
23 3 16 42
54.8 7.1 38.1 35.6
6 1 4 11
54.5 9.1 36.4 9.3
7 2 8 17
41.2 11.8 47.1 14.4
0.082
0.694
0.015*
0.783
*Post-hoc Tukey test significance difference between households with 1–2 animals and > 10 animals. Table 5 Inadequacies of the indicators according to the educational level, presence of disabled person and economic difficulty present in the households of the animal abuse investigations carried out by the Protection Animal Division of Pinhais, Brazil. Indicator
Low educational level Yes
Nutritional Inadequate Regular Adequate Comfort Inadequate Regular Adequate Health Inadequate Regular Adequate Behavioral Inadequate Regular Adequate Total
PValue
No
Presence of disabled person Yes
N
%
N
%
25 5 14
56.8 11.4 31.8
25 12 36
34.2 16.4 49.3
29 8 7
65.9 18.2 15.9
45 14 14
61.6 19.2 19.2
16 11 17
36.4 25.0 38.6
16 20 37
21.9 27.4 50.7
23 3 18 44
52.3 6.8 40.9 37.6
35 6 32 73
47.9 8.2 43.8 62.4
PValue
Economic difficulty Yes
No
N
%
N
%
19 4 7
63.3 13.3 23.3
32 12 43
36.4 14.8 48.9
23 6 1
76.7 20 3.3
52 16 20
59.1 18.2 22.7
15 9 6
50 30 20
17 23 48
19.3 26.1 54.5
16 2 12 30
53.3 6.7 40 25.4
43 7 38 88
48.9 7.9 43.2 74.6
0.06
PValue
No
N
%
N
%
21 3 6
70.0 10.0 20.0
30 14 44
34.1 15.9 50
23 4 3
76.7 13.3 10.0
52 18 18
59.1 20.5 20.5
14 6 10
46.7 20.0 33.3
18 26 44
20.5 29.5 50
15 4 11 30
50.0 13.3 36.7 25.4
44 5 39 88
50 5.7 44.3 74.6
0.02
0.88
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.21
0.001
0.95
0.02
0.94
0.35
adequate care for their pets in Pinhais, Brazil. It was found that the number of dogs and cats at home, the educational level of owners, economic difficulties and the presence of disabled people are factors associated with the occurrence of animal neglect. In this study, there were limitations in the study design, sample size and the identification of domestic violence. Despite this, the results have important implications for the understanding of the factors related to negligence in dogs and cats. Future studies should evaluate other factors that may be related to the occurrence of dogs and cats abuse, such as the humananimal bond, cultural beliefs, and family values.
from the United States and South Africa, in which the largest failures were related to housing conditions (Donley et al., 1999; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993). Nevertheless, it is important to consider that a significant number of households in Pinhais did not supply nutritional and health needs, such as water, food, and treatment of diseases. Considering the relevance of the knowledge about the needs of companion animals, family intervention strategies for the prevention and control of animal neglect should be directed to increment the awareness of the families about this problem. In this way, the development of educational programs in the communities is fundamental to improve the welfare of companion animals (Mariti et al., 2011; Vermeulen and Odendaal, 1993).
Conflict of interest 5. Conclusion The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. All cases of dogs and cats abuse corresponded to situations of animal neglect, evidencing that it is common for owners not to provide 23
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
Acknowledgments
levantamento dos casos atendidos no setor de psicologia de una delegacia para a mulher. Estud. Psicol. 28, 219–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103166X2011000200009. Hammerschmidt, J., Molento, C.F.M., 2014. Protocol for expert report on animal welfare in case of companion animal cruelty suspicion. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 51, 282–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.1678-4456.v51i4p282-296. Hammerschmidt, J., Molento, C.F.M., 2012. Análise retrospectiva de denúncias de maustratos contra animais na região de Curitiba, Estado do Paraná, utilizando critérios de bem-estar animal. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 49, 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10. 11606/issn.1678-4456.v49i6p431-441. Hensley, C., Tallichet, S.E., Dutkiewicz, E.L., 2010. Childhood bestiality: a potential precursor to adult interpersonal violence. J. Interpers. Violence 25, 557–567. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509360988. Hodgson, K., Darling, M., 2011. Pets in the family: practical approaches. J. Am. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 47, 299–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.5326/JAAHA-MS-5695. Jones, A., Logan-Greene, P., 2016. Understanding and responding to chronic neglect: a mixed methods case record examination. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 67, 212–219. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.011. Li, F., Godinet, M.T., Arnsberger, P., 2011. Protective factors among families with children at risk of maltreatment: follow up to early school years. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 33, 139–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.026. Marinelli, L., Adamelli, S., Normando, S., Bono, G., 2007. Quality of life of the pet dog: influence of owner and dog’s characteristics. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 108, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.018. Mariti, C., Papi, F., Mengoli, M., Moretti, G., Martelli, F., Gazzano, A., 2011. Improvement in children’s humaneness toward nonhuman animals through a project of educational anthrozoology. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 6, 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jveb.2010.07.003. Marlet, E.F., Maiorka, P.C., 2010. Análise retrospectiva de casos de maus tratos contra cães e gatos na cidade de São Paulo. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 47, 385–394. Mardones, F.O., Hernandez-Jover, M., Berezowski, J., Lindberg, A., Marzet, J.A.K., Morris, R.S., 2016. Veterinary epidemiology: forging a path toward one health. Prev. Vet. Med. 137, 147–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.022. Merck, M.D., 2013. Veterinary Forensics: Animal Cruelty Investigations, second ed. Blackwell Publishing, Iowa. Meyer, I., Forkman, B., 2014. Dog and owner characteristics affecting the dog-owner relationship. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 9, 143–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jveb.2014.03.002. Monsalve, S., Ferreira, F., Garcia, R., 2017. The connection between animal abuse and interpersonal violence: a review from the veterinary perspective. Res. Vet. Sci. 114, 18–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.02.025. Nathanson, J.N., 2009. Animal hoarding: slipping into the darkness of comorbid animal and self-neglect. J. Elder Abuse Negl. 21, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 08946560903004839. Newberry, M., 2016. Pets in danger: exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse. Aggress. Violent Behav. 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016. 11.007. Pérez-Cárceles, M.D., Rubio, L., Pereniguez, J.E., Pérez-Flores, D., Osuna, E., Luna, A., 2009. Suspicion of elder abuse in South Eastern Spain: the extent and risk factors. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 49, 132–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2008.06. 002. Polo, G., Calderón, N., Clothier, S., Garcia, R.D.C.M., 2015. Understanding dog aggression: epidemiologic aspects. In memoriam, Rudy de Meester (1953-2012). J. Vet. Behav: Clin. Appl. Res. 10 (6), 525–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2015.09. 003. R Core Team, 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundationfor Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Ramón, M.E., Slater, M.R., Ward, M.P., 2010. Companion animal knowledge, attachment and pet cat care and their associations with household demographics for residents of a rural Texas town. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 251–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. prevetmed.2010.01.008. Salman, M.D., New, J.G., Scarlett, J.M., Kris, P., 1998. Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 1, 207–226. Scarlett, J.M., Salman, M.D., New, J.G., Kass, P., 1999. Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal shelters: selected health and personal issues. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2, 47–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0201. Sidebotham, P., Heron, J., 2006. Child maltreatment in the “children of the nineties”: a cohort study of risk factors. Child Abuse Negl. 30, 497–522. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.chiabu.2005.11.005. Silva, A.J., Guilloux, A.G., Zetun, C.B., Polo, G., Braga, G.B., Panachão, L.I., Santos, O., Dias, R.A., 2013. Abandono de cães na América Latina: revisão de literatura. Revista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SP 11 (2), 34–41. Slack, K.S., Berger, L.M., DuMont, K., Yang, M., Kim, B., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., Holl, J.L., 2011. Risk and protective factors for child neglect during early childhood: a crossstudy comparison. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 33, 1354–1363. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.024. Vermeulen, H., Odendaal, J.S.J., 1993. Proposed typology of companion animal abuse. Anthrozoos A Multidiscip. J. Interact. People Anim. 6, 248–257. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2752/089279393787002178. Vessier, I., Jensen, K.K., Botreau, R., Sandoe, P., 2011. Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the welfare quality® scheme. Anim. Welf. 20, 89–101. Vieira, L.J.E.D.S., Pordeus, A.M.J., Ferreira, R.C., Moreira, D.P., Maia, P.B., Saviolli, K.C., 2008. Fatores de risco para violência contra a mulher no contexto doméstico e
The authors would like to sincerely thank to the Animal Protection Division of the Department of Environment of Pinhais, Paraná, Brazil for allowing the development of this study. References Adamelli, S., Marinelli, L., Normando, S., Bono, G., 2005. Owner and cat features influence the quality of life of the cat. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 94, 89–98. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.003. Agnew, R., 1998. The causes of animal abuse: asocial-psychological analysis. Theor. Criminol. 2, 177–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362480698002002003. Allen, M., Gallagher, B., Jones, B., 2006. Domestic violence and the abuse of pets: researching the link and its implications in Ireland. Practice 18, 167–181. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/09503150600904060. Arkow, P., 2013. The impact of companion animals on social capital and community violence: setting research, policy and program agendas. J. Sociol. Soc. Welf. 40, 33–55. Arkow, P., 2015. Recognizing and responding to cases of suspected animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect: what the veterinarian needs to know. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 6, 349–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VMRR.S87198. Ascione, F.R., Weber, C.V., Thompson, T.M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., Hayashi, K., 2007. Battered pets and domestic violence: animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women 13, 354–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201. Benetato, M.A., Reisman, R., McCobb, E., 2011. The veterinarian’s role in animal cruelty cases. JAVMA 238 (1), 31–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.238.1.31. Boat, B.W., Knight, J.C., 2001. Experiences and needs of adult protective services case managers when assisting clients who have companion animals. J. Elder Abuse Negl. 12, 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J084v12n03. Burchfield, K.B., 2016. The sociology of animal crime: an examination of incidents and arrests in Chicago. Deviant Behav. 37, 368–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 01639625.2015.1026769. Câmara Municipal de Pinhais, 2012. Lei municipal 1356 – Dispõe sobre a proteção e bemestar animal, a prevenção e o controle de zoonoses no município de pinhais e dá outras providências. Brazil. . Choi, J.B., Thomas, M., 2015. Perceptual difference of child neglect among Korean parents and children: implications for child welfare policy. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 55, 56–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.011. Clément, M., Bérubé, A., Chamberland, C., 2016. Prevalence and risk factors of child neglect in the general population. Public Health 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. puhe.2016.03.018. Cohen, S.P., 2002. Can pets function as family members? West. J. Nurs. Res. 24, 621–638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019394502236636. Congresso Nacional, 1998. Lei nº 9.605 – Dispõe sobre as sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Brazil. . Costa, M.C.O., De Carvalho, R.C., Santa Bárbara, J.F.R., Santos, C.A.S.T., Gomes, W.A., De Sousa, H.L., 2007. O perfil da violência contra crianças e adolescentes, segundo registros de Conselhos Tutelares: vítimas, agressores e manifestações de violência. Cien. Saude Colet. 12, 1129–1141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S141381232007000500010. Crook, A., 2000. The CVMA animal abuse position - how we got here. Can. Vet. J. 41, 631–633. Cruz, V., Albuquerque, C.P., 2013. Maus-tratos em crianças e adolescentes com deficiência e/ou perturbações do desenvolvimento. Rev. Bras. Educ. Espec. 19, 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382013000100002. Dahlberg, L., Krug, E., 2007. Violência: um problema global de saúde pública. Cien. Saude Colet. 11, 1163–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232006000500007. Darie, N., 2015. Child’s exposures to emotional neglect in drug users families. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 180, 1590–1598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.312. Donley, L., Patronek, G.J., Luke, C., 1999. Animal abuse in Massachusetts: a summary of case reports at the MSPCA and attitudes of Massachusetts veterinarians. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2, 59–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0201_5. Dubowitz, H., Kim, J., Black, M.M., Weisbart, C., Semiatin, J., Magder, L.S., 2011. Identifying children at high risk for a child maltreatment report. Child Abuse Negl. 35, 96–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.09.003. Faraco, C.B., 2008. Interaçao humano-animal. Ciência veterinária nos trópicos 11, 31–35. Fielding, W.J., 2010. Domestic violence and dog care in New Providence, The Bahamas. Soc. Anim. 18, 183–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853010X492024. Flynn, C.P., 2000. Battered women and their animal companions: symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Soc. Anim. 8, 99–127. Franzin, L., Olandovski, M., Vettorazzi, M., Werneck, R., Moysés, S., Kusma, S., Moysés, S., 2014. Child and adolescent abuse and neglect in the city of Curitiba. Braz. Child Abuse Negl. 38, 1706–1714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.003. Freiwald, A., Litster, A., Weng, H.Y., 2014. Survey to investigate pet ownership and attitudes to pet care in metropolitan Chicago dog and/or cat owners. Prev. Vet. Med. 115, 198–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.03.025. Friedmann, E., Son, H., 2009. The human-companion animal bond: how humans benefit. Vet. Clin. North Am. - Small Anim. Pract. 39, 293–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cvsm.2008.10.015. Gadoni-Costa, L.M., Zucatti, A.P.N., Dell’Aglio, D.D., 2011. Violência contra a mulher:
24
Preventive Veterinary Medicine 157 (2018) 19–25
S. Monsalve et al.
and their understanding of the correlation between animal abuse and human violence. N. Z. Vet. J. 56, 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2008.36800. Yimer, E., Mesfin, A., Beyene, M., Bekele, A., Taye, G., Zewdie, B., Alemayehu, T., 2012. Study on knowledge, attitude and dog ownership patterns related to rabies prevention and control in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J. 16, 27–39. http://dx.doi. org/10.4314/evj.v16i2.3.
coletivo. Saude e Soc. 17, 113–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S010412902008000300012. WHO, 1996. World Health Organization. WHO Global Consultation on Violence and Health. Violence: a Public Health Priority. Genoveva. . Williams, V.M., Dale, A.R., Clarke, N., Garrett, N.K.G., 2008. Animal abuse and family violence: survey on the recognition of animal abuse by veterinarians in New Zealand
25