The development and validation of the One Health Community Assessment.

Interdisciplinary collaborations to address human, animal, and environmental health have been emphasized since the inception of the One Health framework. A quantitative survey instrument was developed to measure perceptions of the impacts of pets on One Health. Using the exploratory sequential mixed methods approach, 20 interviews were conducted with individuals from a racially diverse and low-socioeconomic status community in the U.S. to understand their perceptions of One Health. Data from those interviews informed the development of a Likert scale survey measuring individual perceptions of community, human, pet, and environmental health and welfare, as well as the connections between the domains of the One Health triad (human, animal, and environment). The resulting One Health Community Assessment (OHCA) was administered in two urban and two rural underserved U.S. communities longitudinally (2018-2021) through door-to-door data collection as well as phone, email, and text surveys. Validation of the instrument was completed using data collected in the third and fourth years of the study (n = 654). Factor analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation was used to assess the structure and internal consistency of the OHCA. Five subscales explained 42.4% of the variance in our 92-item instrument: community health (Cronbach's α = 0.897), human health (α = 0.842), pet health (α = 0.899), environmental health (α = 0.789), and connections between domains of One Health (α = 0.762). The OHCA represents the first reliable and validated instrument to measure the impacts of pets on One Health.

Detailed Assessment of Pet Ownership Rates in Four Underserved Urban and Rural Communities in the United States.

Understanding pet ownership in a community is an important factor for assessing the effectiveness of animal welfare programming. Data on pet ownership were collected from 2,327 households in two urban and two rural zip codes. The percentage of households owning pets and the species owned were calculated for the individual communities, the urban and rural pairs, and the aggregate data. Findings were compared to the 2017-2018 AVMA Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook data. The rural communities had an 11.5% higher rate of overall pet keeping and a 19% higher dog ownership rate than the urban communities, but the measured cat ownership rate was similar in all four sites at an average of 19.4% (SD = 2.1%). The community-specific rates of pet ownership were different (p < .0001) than the rates predicted fromthe AVMA-recommended formula, but at 56.8%, the aggregate pet-keeping rate was exactly the same as that calculated by the AVMA. The findings reveal community-level variability in pet-keeping rates that must be accounted for when assessing pet service, emergency planning, and animal welfare programming needs.

Measuring Changes in Perceptions of Access to Pet Support Care in Underserved Communities.

Understanding social, economic, and structural barriers to accessing pet care services is important for improving the health and welfare of companion animals in underserved communities in the U.S. From May 2018-December 2019, six questions from the validated One Health Community Assessment were used to measure perceptions of access to pet care in two urban and two rural zip codes. One urban and one rural community received services from a pet support outreach program (Pets for Life), while the other served as a comparison community. After propensity score matching was performed to eliminate demographic bias in the sample (Urban = 512 participants, Rural = 234 participants), Generalized Estimating Equations were employed to compare the six measures of access to pet care between the intervention and comparison communities. The urban community with the Pets for Life intervention was associated with a higher overall measure of access to pet care compared to the urban site that did not have the Pets for Life intervention. When assessing each of the six measures of access to care, the urban community with the Pets for Life intervention was associated with higher access to affordable pet care options and higher access to pet care service providers who offer payment options than the community without the Pets for Life intervention. Further analyses with a subset of Pets for Life clients comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention survey responses revealed statistically significant positive trends in perceptions of two of the six measures of access to pet care. This study provides evidence that community-based animal welfare programming has the potential to increase perceptions of access to pet support services.

Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement.

Due to inherent and systemic biases, animal control policies in the US are over-enforced in low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in worse health outcomes for the pets in these communities. These outcomes are exemplified by higher confiscation, relinquishment, and euthanasia rates, lower return to owner rates, and extended lengths of stay in animal shelters. The Humane Communities framework operationalizes One Health and One Welfare concepts to comprehensively address issues of inequity at both the individual and structural levels to improve animal control policy and outcomes. Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement.

Race and ethnicity are not primary determinants in utilizing veterinary services in underserved communities in the United States.

A retrospective database analysis (2011-2015) evaluated associations between race and ethnicity and veterinary service utilization by sampling 83,260 companion animals whose guardians (owners) self-identified as White, Black, or Latino/a from 39 Humane Society of the United States Pets for Life (PFL) sites across the United States. Controlling for socioeconomic status, the percentage of nonhuman animals sterilized through PFL whose owners were Latino/a or Black was substantially higher than in previously reported findings. While Latinos/as had the highest mean number of days from first contact with the program to consent, they also had the highest percentage of owners accepting the voucher during initial contact. Logistic regression models suggested that although meaningful, race and ethnicity were not primary determinants of veterinary service utilization. When veterinary and animal welfare organizations deliberately remove structural barriers embedded with racial inequalities, individuals, regardless of race and ethnicity, proceed with companion-animal sterilization. Therefore, service providers must use unbiased, informed, and culturally competent practices to improve companion-animal welfare through the optimization of veterinary services, including spay and neuter.