Skip to main content
Frontiers in Veterinary Science logoLink to Frontiers in Veterinary Science
. 2022 Jul 18;9:971946. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.971946

Erratum: Occurrence and Risk Factors of Dog Bites in Northern Indigenous Communities: A Scoping Review

Frontiers Production Office 1,*
PMCID: PMC9344926  PMID: 35928112

Due to a production error, the references were incorrectly numbered in Table 4 and in one paragraph.

A correction has been made to the section Results, subsection “Characteristics of Sources of Evidence,” paragraph one:

“The first article included was published in 2007 (35), but most studies (6/8) were published between 2010 and 2019 (Table 1). The northern Indigenous communities included or mentioned were Inuit from Nunavik, Canada (3/8) (7, 11, 20), Sahtu from Northwest Territories, Canada (1/8) (34), Cree and Assiniboine from Saskatchewan, Canada (2/8) (36, 37), and unspecified Natives from Alaska, USA (2/8) (10, 35). One of the United States studies (10) also compared dog bite injuries among children from non-Nordic (American Indian) and Nordic (Alaska Native) Indigenous communities and mentioned the Navajo and other American Indian communities from the USA as well. We found no publications from Eurasia.”

A correction has been made to Table 4. The corrected table appears below.

Table 4.

Dog bite risk factors identified by the studies included in the scoping review (some studies may have been classified in more than one categories).

Study design
Risk factors Qualitative design Quantitative design Reported as hypothesis or cited from literature
Evidence of importance by qualitative methods Statistically significant association with the occurrence of bites Suggesting a possible association without having proven it
Individual human factors
Age (children) (11) 0 (10, 11, 34–36) (7)
Gender (male) 0 (10), [11*] (11, 34, 35) (36)
Behavior toward dog (conflictual/provoked) (7, 11, 37) 0 (11, 34, 35), [36*] 0
Sociocultural characteristics (ethnicity) (36) (35) (7, 10, 11) 0
Dog factors
Breeds/size 0 0 (35) 0
Function/role (11) 0 (35) 0
Gender and reproductive status 0 0 0 (36)
Ownership or presence of a keeper 0 0 (35) (37)
Number (lone dogs) 0 0 0 0
Structural and environmental factors
Lack of veterinary service or animal control resources (11, 36) 0 (10) (7, 11, 34, 37)
Geographic remoteness 0 0 0 (34, 36)
Lack of legislative interventions (7, 11) 0 (10) (7, 36, 37)
Density of dogs in the community (overpopulation) 0 0 (10) (7, 11, 34)
Free roaming (7, 11), [7, 37*] 0 [35*] (7, 37)
Seasonality (temporal variations) (11) (11) (36) 0

[*]Contradictory result.

The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated.


Articles from Frontiers in Veterinary Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES