Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Public Health Reports logoLink to Public Health Reports
. 1975 May-Jun;90(3):262–267.

The ecology of dog bite injury in St. Louis, Missouri.

A M Beck, H Loring, R Lockwood
PMCID: PMC1435667  PMID: 807942

Abstract

A detailed analysis of all the reported dog bites that occurred over a 2-year period in St. Louis, Mo., provided new insight not only into the severity of the problem, but also the environmental context for injury. Dog bite is a major medical problem that affects at least 1 of every 222 people and specifically 1 of every 83 children, 5 to 9 years old. Nearly 20 percent of all the children bitten were injured on the head or face, a source of concren and expense for all concerned. Nearly 10 percent of all bites were classified as serious. In only 25 percent of all injuries did the victim's behabior involve the dog at the time ofe victim interacting with the dog's owner. The victim was on the dog owner's property in about u9 percent of the incidents, and in about 48 percent of the cases the bite took pla-e near the owner's property. Bite incidents go up whenever the weather is conductive to street activity. More than 85 percent of all the biting dogs had owners. These results indicate that society's views of dog bite injury, which tend to minimize the problem and find fault with the victim, must be re-evaluated. It is time to place less emphasis on the victim and even the animal and review thae public health implications of dog ownership

Full text

PDF
262

Images in this article

264p264-a
on p.264
265p265-a
on p.265
267p267-a
on p.267

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berzon D. R., DeHoff J. B. Medical costs and other aspects of dog bites in Baltimore. Public Health Rep. 1974 Jul-Aug;89(4):377–381. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berzon D. R., Farber R. E., Gordon J., Kelley E. B. Animal bites in a large city--a report on Baltimore, Maryland. Am J Public Health. 1972 Mar;62(3):422–426. doi: 10.2105/ajph.62.3.422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. COCHAVY Z., DAVIES A. M. Animal bites in Israel. An epidemiological analysis with special reference to the problem of rabies. J Trop Med Hyg. 1960 Nov;63:251–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feldmann B. M., Carding T. H. Free-roaming urban pets. Health Serv Rep. 1973 Dec;88(10):956–962. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Harris D., Imperato P. J., Oken B. Dog bites--an unrecognized epidemic. Bull N Y Acad Med. 1974 Oct;50(9):981–1000. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Martin R. J., Schnurrenberger P. R., Rose N. J. Epidemiology of rabies vaccinations of persons in Illinois, 1967-68. Public Health Rep. 1969 Dec;84(12):1069–1077. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Morton C. Dog bites in Norfolk, Va. Health Serv Rep. 1973 Jan;88(1):59–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Norris F. D., Jackson E. W., Aaron E. Prospective study of dog bite and childhood cancer. Cancer Res. 1971 Apr;31(4):383–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. PARRISH H. M., CLACK F. B., BROBST D., MOCK J. F. Epidemiology of dog bites. Public Health Rep. 1959 Oct;74:891–903. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schultz R. C., McMaster W. C. The treatment of dog bite injuries, especially those of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972 May;49(5):494–500. doi: 10.1097/00006534-197205000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sokol A. B., Houser R. G. Dog bites: prevention and treatment. Comments from the surgeon's viewpoint. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1971 Jun;10(6):336–338. doi: 10.1177/000992287101000616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Thomson H. G., Svitek V. Small animal bites: the role of primary closure. J Trauma. 1973 Jan;13(1):20–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Public Health Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES