Table 3.
Characteristics of Dog Ownership Practices by Community Poverty Level, Uganda, 2013
| Community poverty level | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty classification | 0–15% | 16–35% | 36–55% | >55% | Total | Cochran P value |
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Number of dogs | 18 | 17 | 109 | 31 | 175 | |
| Number of people | 380 | 343 | 1 846 | 1 807 | 4 376 | |
| Number of households | 79 | 79 | 357 | 283 | 798 | |
| Dog owning households | 3 (3.8%) | 10 (12.7%) | 67 (18.8%) | 23 (8.1%) | 103 (12.9%) | |
| How Often Are Dogs Allowed to Roam Freely? | <0.01 | |||||
| Always | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | 38 (34.9%) | 13 (41.9%) | 55 (31.4%) | |
| Occasionally | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (17.6%) | 21 (19.3%) | 2 (6.5%) | 26 (14.9%) | |
| Infrequently | 11 (61.1%) | 4 (23.5%) | 26 (23.9%) | 8 (25.8%) | 49 (28.0%) | |
| Never | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (35.3%) | 24 (22.0%) | 8 (25.8%) | 38 (21.7%) | |
| Unknown | 7 (38.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (4.0%) | |
| Number of dogs allowed to roam freely | 11 (61.1%) | 11 (64.7%) | 85 (78.0%) | 23 (74.2%) | 130 (74.3%) | 0.36 |
| Level of care households provided for dogsa | ||||||
| None | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.9%) | 0.78 |
| Food | 2 (66.7%) | 9 (90.0%) | 65 (97.0%) | 22 (95.7%) | 98 (95.1%) | 0.10 |
| Water | 2 (66.7%) | 9 (90.0%) | 55 (82.1%) | 18 (78.3%) | 84 (81.6%) | 0.78 |
| Shelter | 2 (66.7%) | 6 (60.0%) | 24 (35.8%) | 7 (30.4%) | 39 (37.9%) | 0.28 |
| Veterinary Care | 2 (66.7%) | 9 (90.0%) | 27 (40.3%) | 7 (30.4%) | 45 (43.7%) | 0.01 |
| Households with Unvaccinated Dogs | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (30.0%) | 38 (56.7%) | 13 (56.5%) | 54 (52.4%) | 0.11 |
| Reason Owners did not Vaccinated Dogsb | ||||||
| Dog is too young | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 7 (18.4%) | 1 (7.7%) | 9 (16.7%) | |
| No time | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (15.4%) | 3 (5.6%) | |
| No money to buy vaccine | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 4 (10.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (9.3%) | |
| No vaccine available | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 20 (52.6%) | 7 (53.8%) | 27 (50.0%) | |
| Government vaccination did not occur | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (18.4%) | 3 (23.1%) | 10 (18.5%) | |
| No need to vaccinate/Did not know needed to vax | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (15.4%) | 3 (5.6%) | |
| Unknown reason | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.9%) | |
| Households providing care to community dogs | 2 (2.5%) | 5 (6.3%) | 44 (12.3%) | 28 (9.9%) | 79 (9.9%) | 0.04 |
| Number of community dogs cared for | 11 | 12 | 205 | 111 | 339 | |
| Level of care provided to community dogsb | ||||||
| Food | 2 (2.5%) | 4 (5.1%) | 43 (12.0%) | 29 (10.2%) | 78 (9.8%) | |
| Water | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (2.5%) | 17 (4.8%) | 10 (3.5%) | 29 (3.6%) | |
| Shelter | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.4%) | 2 (0.3%) | |
| Veterinary Care | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.1%) | |
| Other | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (0.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (0.3%) | |
avariables are not mutually exclusive, therefore a Cochran p-value can be calculated for each row
bcell values are too small to calculate a Cochran P value