All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for the revised manuscript, it is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by John Measey, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for considering the issues raised in review#2. There is just one issue which I have raised for your consideration within this revision. Apart from this issue which I ask you to consider, the article reads extremely well, is informative with improved balance.
The study design is now much improved.
Regarding 2.5, now 2.10 in reviewers response table:
In Gunter et al., 2023, it is stated “Nevertheless, dogs in our study that were surrendered by their owners or returned by adopters, and then temporarily fostered, were more likely to be euthanized than temporarily fostered dogs that arrived as strays or were part of cruelty or neglect investigations. During temporary fostering stays, it is possible that caregivers’ observations coincided with behavioral concerns about these dogs that were expressed by their previous owners and played a role in the dogs’ negative outcomes. Prior work by Duffy et al. [31] and Stephen and Ledger [32] found that relinquishing owners’ reports about their dogs’ aggression toward strangers were significantly correlated to reports by the dogs’ new adopters about the same behavior. Nevertheless, future research with a larger sample size of temporarily fostered dogs would allow for more accurate parameter estimation concerning these intake types and outcomes.” Perhaps this merits mentioning with a sentence clarifying that “it is unknown whether a dog’s euthanasia was because of a medical reason, behavioral concern, lack of space (or a combination of these)”.
Please address the comments by both the reviewers. I hope to have the revised version of the manuscript soon.
The authors have greatly improved their review. This topic has not been previously reviewed to this extent, and the authors effectively cover the literature. The intro is clear and provides a good layout of the restructured manuscript.
Improved methodology and layout of subheadings. One issue with the citation for Graham et al 2024:
Line 408 on: Your reference to the Graham et al (2024) study is blending two studies: 'Online training using an educational video improves human ability to identify and rate kitten fear behaviour' provided educational training for improving rating fear behaviour in kittens, whereas 'Too much too soon? Risk factors for fear behaviour in foster kittens prior to adoption' investigated the behavioural outcomes of early socialization experiences. Need to edit this section to clarify this statement.
Much improved coverage of the known literature and well described subheadings
Still many instances of using “that” rather than “who” when describing animals and humans
Need proofreading for typos and grammar errors throughout
Thank you for considering the issues raised in the review. The manuscript is much improved in structure and flow, with a more balanced reporting of the literature.
There are a some edits which I have noted:
1. Line 71: “pets” might be replaced by either “dogs” or companion animal”. It is more in line with terminology used in this article.
2. Line 206: please insert “to” after compared
3. Line 238: Might this be reworded such that Gunter et al.,2022, is not followed by a ref to Gunter and colleagues (2022)? When it is the same study, it fails to read well.
4. Overall it might improve continuity and presentation if all refs were “author et al., (xxxx)”, rather than randomly using “author and colleagues”.
5. Line 430: insert “for” after “needed”
6. Line 606: a comma after “adopters” and before “and”
7. Line 633/634: These lines might be reworded to separate the distal and proximate benefits of foster care to animals, from any benefits which may be received by foster caregivers. As the sentence is somewhat repeated in lines 645/646, perhaps these might be amalgamated?
8. Section 6, does not clearly state that while fostering may provide positive emotional benefits to foster caregivers, it can impact negatively on their emotional well-being. Compassion fatigue and secondary trauma induce a negative emotional state. This may need to be expressed within one sentence, rather than have salient information separated.
9. This might additionally be mentioned in the conclusion
10. In the Reviewers Response Table, 2.5 does not appear to be addressed in section 9
The study design has been much improved
Any remaining issues have been addressed in the comments. Points 1-6 are minor. Points 7-10 add to clarity of the findings in the literature reviewed.
I agree with Reviewer 3 that you can structure your review better. Moreover, Reviewer 2 brings up some very pertinent points about th coverage of positive and negative impacts of fostering. Please pay attention to these points when you submit your revised manuscript.
Excellent coverage of the literature in this understudied topic.
No review that I know of has been recently published.
The introduction primarily focuses on dog fostering and introduces this well. It could increase mention of cat fostering, though I know there is minimal research being done with cats
This is a comprehensive review and seems to cover the literature well.
Sources are adequately cited with one section needing to improve citations (Lines 295-303).
A dissertation is cited where full manuscripts are now published or in press (Line 229). As the author, I have listed the published manuscripts in itemized comments below, and am happy to share manuscripts in proof if needed.
The review is organized logically and is appropriately sectioned.
Well developed synthesis of the current literature.
Unresolved questions and future directions are appropriately discussed.
Below are minor itemized comments:
This is a very important and timely review article that is very well written. Great work!
Throughout: I suggest using “who” rather than “that” when describing companion animals, e.g., “…dogs who were adopted…” vs. “…dogs that were adopted…” (this was done sometimes but not consistently)
Introduction: No mention of cat fostering?
Line 126 onwards: What occurred during these outings? I think some more detail here would help put into context the increase in cortisol levels. This also validates that cortisol is a conflicting measure of stress as the valence of the experience is not known. The increase in cortisol during these outings may not necessarily indicate a reduction in welfare outcomes (or increase in negative stress) but may have been an exciting and positive experience for these dogs. I suggest including this possibility in this section (e.g., Polgár et al., 2019, Assessing the welfare of kennelled dogs—A review of animal-based measures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7126575/).
Line 189: Suggest adding an example of “a live outcome”
Line 194: Typo: “…less than 2%...”
Line 219: Typo: Berlinger (no g)
Line 227: Add “-” to human and conspecific: “…human-, conspecific-, or dog-directed aggressive behaviors"
Line 229: These dissertation manuscripts are now published or in press, though it is not quite clear which specific studies are being referred to in this sentence. I’m happy to share manuscript proofs for those in press if needed.
• Graham, C., Khalife, S., Pearl, D.L., Mason, G.J., Niel, L. (Accepted, in press). Tell-tail fear behaviours in kittens: Identifying the scaredy cat. Animal Behavior and Cognition (Reference: ABC-202401-002).
• Graham, C., Koralesky, K., Pearl, D.L., Niel, L. (Accepted, in press). Understanding kitten fostering and socialization practices using mixed methods. Animal Welfare (Reference: AWF-2024-0045).
• Graham, C., Hurley, S., Pearl, D.L., Mason, G.J., Niel, L. 2024. Online training using an educational video improves human ability to identify and rate kitten fear behaviour. Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health, 3(1). doi.org/10.56771/jsmcah.v3.91
• Graham, C., Pearl, D.L., Niel, L. 2024. Too much too soon? Risk factors for fear behaviour in foster kittens prior to adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science Special Issue: From pests to pets: The multifaceted cat-human relationship, 270, 106141. doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106141
Line 268: Do not need the reference citation at the end as it is already cited within the sentence.
Lines 295-303: References?
Line 456: Do not need the reference citation at the end as it is already cited within the sentence.
Line 471: Suggest moving % to earlier in the sentence: “A portion of respondents (7%) also described challenges managing the fostered dog with existing dogs in the home.”
Line 475-477: Suggest shuffling the citation within the sentence: “In Daily’s (2021) study, caregivers reported other difficulties, including a spectrum of emotions associated with adoption from placing their fostered dog with its adopter after forming an attachment (13%) as well as an inability to rehabilitate or place their dog (7%)".
Line 480: Do not need the reference citation at the end as it is already cited within the sentence.
Introduction and discussion
This manuscript “Companion animal foster caregiving: A review exploring animal and caregiver welfare, barriers to caregiver recruitment and retention, and best practices for foster care programs in animal shelters” is informative, and addresses a need for such a review, however, there are obvious strengths and some weaknesses.
Although 38 articles are reviewed, a more balanced presentation needs to be considered. The following details some of the issues.
The review appears to reflect a more positive effect of fostering animals, for both the animal and for the caregiver, until line 441. There are some important omission such as when discussing Powell et al. 2024, (Line 268) it is not mentioned that the authors state that longitudinal evidence to support the promotion of mental wellbeing in caregivers was not evident in this study.
Any impact on fostering by COVID-19 is not mentioned until line 401, while in lines 191-195, clarification of the impact of COVID-19 may be highly relevant in relation to the findings of the study discussed. Daily (2021) states of the effects of COVID-19 on her study “While it was not typically referred to as a reason for becoming involved in fostering, the pandemic likely had unintended impacts on the study given the shortage of available dogs apparently caused by suddenly homebound people adopting pets in large numbers. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of animal rescues is a topic that should be investigated systematically in the future given that information on the topic at present is anecdotal.”
Lines 245-256 discusses a study of 4 Veterans and the positive effects of foster caregiving. However, it does not mention that the study did not have a control population, the Veterans all had increased human contact through the main investigator and various rescue group volunteers which created a confounding variable and there is no longitudinal data to support a continued effect over a longer period.
The section (Line 263) is termed “ Effects of foster care on the emotional wellbeing of caregivers”, and should describe both positive and negative effects (if they exist) to provide balance. For example, Powell et al. (2024) (Line 268) did not find longitudinal evidence to support the promotion of mental wellbeing, this might be included in the manuscript for balance and clarity. Daily (2021) is referenced however, again, only the more positive findings are referred to, there is no mention of the findings which may effect the emotional wellbeing of animal caregivers. Daily also states “the results for the quantitative variables should be interpreted with care based on the sample size and the drop-out rate”, To achieve balance, negative factors need to be discussed in addition to positive ones. While the section from line 441 discusses “challenges and obstacles in foster caregiving”, which is the first mention of these issues. Here, the emotional challenges which caregivers may experience are mentioned, however, this might be referenced from “ Effects of foster care on the emotional wellbeing of caregivers”, as in (see section xx), to facilitate an enhanced unified structure.
In line 393, Gunter et al., (2023) are cited, however, an important issue may be that they state “dogs in our study that were surrendered by their owners or returned by adopters, and then temporarily fostered, were more likely to be euthanized than temporarily fostered dogs that arrived as strays or were part of cruelty or neglect investigations”. This is a concerning aspect of “Evaluating foster care programs”. This might be mentioned.
In the section “Best practices and recommendations for foster care programs” it might be prudent to mention in lines 535-536, that the care needs of the dogs referred to may impact negatively on caregivers.
The conclusion might consider ways in which to address both the positive and negative aspects of animal foster caregiving.
The above detail some examples only.
There are some minor omissions (see general comments).
Search methodology:
The description of the search methodology should list the 11 sections, as defined on the spreadsheet categorization, and the spreadsheet containing the summaries of the 38 relevant articles, (categorized into one of 11 sections) might be made available online, or included within the article. This will clarify the search methodology and strengthen the section.
The article could be more robust by consideration of both positive and negative effects of companion animal foster caregiving, and how these are reported in the literature reviewed. I urge the authors to consider this.
General comments
• The structure of this article could be improved by numbering each section.
• Line 41. Clarification of evidence supporting the suggestion that length of stay is likely increasing would strengthen the statement.
• Line 42. Zawistowski et al., 2010, appears to be missing from the bibliography.
• Line 145. If Gunter at al., is cited as “in prep”, it needs to be included in the bibliography, authors, title, and current status of the manuscript.
• Line 156. Clarification is needed for Gunter et al., 2019, in prep. Gunter et al., exists in the bibliography referring to dogs, is this an article focusing on cats? Perhaps some details regarding findings? Again, inclusion in the bibliography.
• Line 174. Is it known why there is an association between fostering and longer shelter stays?
• Line 191-196. Perhaps this section might be referenced to “Changes to foster programs during the COVID-19 pandemic” (as in: see section xx), as evidence suggests that the surge in interest for adoptions, reduced the availability of dogs in shelters, in the US and Europe. This trend then ceased as lock downs eased, also seeing many dogs surrendered to shelters. The manuscript would benefit from this evidence being referred to here to clarify possible reasons for the success in adoptions during COVID-19.
Possible helpful references:
Carroll GA, Reeve C and Torjussen A (2024). Companion animal adoption and relinquishment during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experiences of animal rescue staff and volunteers. Animal Welfare, 33, e12, 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2024.15
Morgan, L., Protopopova, A., Birkler, R.I.D. et al. Human–dog relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: booming dog adoption during social isolation. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7, 155 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00649-x
• Line 201. Punctuation
• Line 245-256. To provide balance, further information regarding the discussed limitations of the study discussed should be included.
• Line 266/268. Is Sanderson et al., 2023 or 2024. Refer to bibliography.
• Line 272. As the authors did not find longitudinal evidence to support the promotion of mental wellbeing, this might be included in the manuscript for balance and clarity.
• Line 376-377. This would benefit from a reference regarding animals services being reduced.
• Line 459. It may provide balance to mention that initial consideration for foster programs may be prejudiced by safety bias, meaning, dogs with behavioural issues or complex needs may not be selected, resulting in more favourable outcomes recorded for dogs taking part in these programs (Gunter et al. 2022).
• Regarding the bibliography. Please ensure DOIs are included where appropriate.
• When more than one article has been published by the same author in any year, the dates should be annotated to differentiate between articles.
This article can contribute to the empirical knowledge currently available on companion animal foster caregiving. The weakness appears to be balance in the reporting of the reviews.
This manuscript reviews scientific and grey literature about Companion animal foster caregiving. The topic is of interest and within the scope of this journal.
The article is written in clear and technically correct English, all the language professional standards are met.
I think the introduction includes a sufficient background about the subject and a review about this topic is original and needed.
I suggest improving the study design: authors don't explain what type of review they are developing and why they've chosen it. It seems a narrative one, but I think that a Scoping review would be useful for this topic. I think authors should follow specific review guidelines (e.g. PRISMA guidelines) to improve the validity of findings and to report data results rigorously, without bias. An in-depth description of methods is needed to make the study reproducible.
Sources are adequately cited and the results are organized logically, however, a clear subsection about the limitations of the study is needed.
The validity of the findings is limited by the methodology used for the article search and the review protocol adopted. I suggest that the negative effects of foster caregiving should be considered as well as the positive ones and a discussion about their balance should be included in the conclusions.
Conclusions only partially identify unresolved questions and gaps in foster home management (e.g. animal hoarding phenomenon hidden under foster home practices etc. etc.)
No comment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.