Original Research Interventions to prevent dog fouling: a systematic review of the evidence R.L. Atenstaedt a,b, *, S. Jones a a Public Health Wales, Preswylfa, Hendy Road, Mold CH7 1PZ, UK b School of Medical Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK article info Article history: Received 30 March 2010 Received in revised form 26 July 2010 Accepted 2 September 2010 Available online 4 February 2011 Keywords: Dog fouling Public health Toxocariasis Economics Systematic review summary Objectives: To undertake a systematic review of articles on the prevention of dog fouling. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using six major electronic databases. Pub- lished and unpublished material was considered, with no restrictions on date or language. A total of 47 other databases and websites were interrogated. Articles were hand searched for references that had not been identified in the electronic search. Only controlled trials or observational studies assessing the impact of any intervention on the prevention of dog fouling were liable for inclusion in the systematic review. Results: The search identified a total of 68 articles, none of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: The review did not find any good-quality studies which have looked at inter- ventions to prevent dog fouling. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, reviews that are unable to find any relevant studies are particularly useful because they highlight important gaps in our knowledge. It is recommended that research is commissioned to answer the important question of what interventions actually work to prevent dog fouling. Methods for performing this research are suggested. ª 2010 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There are approximately seven million dogs currently residing in the UK, producing 1000 tonnes of faeces per day. 1 In 2005, the charity ENCAMS (Environmental Campaigns) estimated that there were more than 200,000 complaints by members of the public in England on the subject of dog fouling in the 3-year period of study. 2 In the same year, the Local Govern- ment Association reported that 95% of the British public are worried about dog fouling in public places. 3 A survey by Keep Britain Tidy between April 2008 and March 2009 of 12,540 sites in 54 local authority areas in England found that 8% of these sites were contaminated with dog excrement. 4 Dog fouling has both direct and indirect effects on public health. Directly, exposure to canine faeces can cause toxocar- iasis, an infection of the roundworm Toxocara canis. It can also potentially lead to slips, trips and falls, and subsequent injuries. When dog faeces disintegrate, eggs are released into the surrounding soil, becoming a source of toxocariasis infection. 5 In some surveys, the egg density has been estimated at * Corresponding author. Public Health Wales, Preswylfa, Hendy Road, Mold CH7 1PZ, UK. Tel.: þ44 01352 803257; fax: þ44 01352 755679. E-mail address: Robert.Atenstaedt@wales.nhs.uk (R.L. Atenstaedt). available at www.sciencedirect.com Public Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/puhe public health 125 (2011) 90 e92 0033-3506/$ e see front matter ª 2010 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2010.09.006