Volume 167, June 2015, Pages 43–55
Identifying environmental and management factors that may be associated with the quality of life of kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris)
Highlights
- •
- The quality of life of kennelled dogs varies between rehoming centres.
- •
- The majority of dogs in this study had good quality of life.
- •
- Modelling identified several influential centre-related factors.
- •
- Environmental design and kennel management should be carefully considered.
Abstract
This
paper describes the use of a validated quality of life assessment tool
(described elsewhere) to identify environmental and management factors
that may affect quality of life in dogs kennelled in rehoming centres.
Dogs were allocated to one of the four treatment groups, all of which
had a positive (0.0–1.0) average quality of life score: long stay dogs
with an enriched routine had a mean score of 0.477; long stay dogs with a
standard routine had a mean score of 0.453; newly admitted dogs with an
enriched routine had a mean score of 0.399; and newly admitted dogs
with a standard routine had a mean score of 0.362. Only 2% of the dogs
had a negative score (−1.0–0.0). Thirteen rehoming centre managers
completed a questionnaire relating to the kennel environment and
management practices of their rehoming centres. The environmental and
management factors’ associations with quality of life scores, collected
from 202 dogs from the 13 rehoming centres using this scoring system,
were analysed as fixed factors in a linear mixed-effect model, with
rehoming centre fitted as a random factor, and a multiple linear
regression model. There was a statistically significant association
between quality of life scores and rehoming centre (H(12) = 54.153, p < 0.001),
however, the fitted linear mixed-effect model did not improve upon the
null model and therefore cannot be used to explain the 29% variance in
quality of life scores attributed to rehoming centre. The multiple
linear regression model explained 42% of the variation in quality of
life scores (F(10,131) = 9.318, p < 0.001): the provision of bunk beds increased quality of life scores by 0.3 (t = 3.476, p < 0.001); provision of 30 min or more of staff or volunteer interaction increased scores by 0.26 (t = −2.551, p = 0.012); grooming dogs decreased scores by 0.404 (t = 3.326, p = 0.001); exercising dogs more than once a day decreased scores by 0.173 (t = −3.644, p = <0.001), whereas exercising dogs for 30 min or more increased quality of life scores by 0.213 (t = −2.374, p = 0.019) and the provision of less common types of exercise increased scores by 0.504 (t = 5.120, p < 0.001); training dogs for 30 min or more every day increased scores by 0.688 (t = 3.040, p = 0.003) and training dogs less than daily decreased scores by 0.393 (t = −4.245, p < 0.001); feeding a diet of dry and wet food compared to dry food alone decreased scores by 0.08 (t = −2.331, p = 0.021); and a quiet environment increased scores by 0.275 (t = −3.459, p < 0.001).
These results suggest that environmental design and kennel management
have an impact on the quality of life of kennelled dogs and should be
considered carefully in decision-making processes. However, further
study may be required as grooming and exercising dogs more than once per
day decreased quality of life scores, which are not obviously intuitive
results.
Keywords
- Domestic dog;
- Quality of life;
- Welfare;
- Kennel;
- Shelter
- Corresponding author. Tel.:
+44 7970721407.
- 1
- Present address: Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Anglia Ruskin University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
