34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: An investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Previous research suggests that dog owners are slightly more physically active than those without dogs, but have only studied one household member, and it is unclear whether time spent dog walking replaces other physical activity (PA). A survey of 191 dog owning adults (DO), 455 non-dog owning adults (NDO), and 46 children, living in 385 households in West Cheshire UK, was conducted in July-August 2015. Objective (accelerometer) validation occurred on a subset (n = 28 adults). Survey PA outcomes were modelled using hierarchical logistic and linear multivariable regression modelling, accounting for clustering of participants in households. DO were far more likely than NDO to report walking for recreation (OR = 14.35, 95% CI = 5.77–35.79, P < 0.001), and amongst recreational walkers walked for longer per week (RR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.27–5.91, P < 0.001). Other PA undertaken did not differ by dog ownership. The odds of DO meeting current physical activity guidelines of 150 mins per week were four times greater than for NDO (OR = 4.10, 95% CI = 2.05–8.19, P < 0.001). Children with dogs reported more minutes of walking (P = 0.01) and free-time (unstructured) activity (P < 0.01). Dog ownership is associated with more recreational walking and considerably greater odds of meeting PA guidelines. Policies regarding public spaces and housing should support dog ownership due to PA benefits.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour.

          A 10-month prospective study was carried out which examined changes in behaviour and health status in 71 adult subjects following the acquisition of a new pet (either dogs or cats). A group of 26 subjects without pets served as a comparison over the same period. Both pet-owning groups reported a highly significant reduction in minor health problems during the first month following pet acquisition, and this effect was sustained in dog owners through to 10 months. The pet-acquiring groups also showed improvements in their scores on the 30-item General Health Questionnaire over the first 6 months and, in dog owners, this improvement was maintained until 10 months. In addition, dog owners took considerably more physical exercise while walking their dogs than the other two groups, and this effect continued throughout the period of study. The group without pets exhibited no statistically significant changes in health or behaviour, apart from a small increase in recreational walking. The results provide evidence that pet acquisition may have positive effects on human health and behaviour, and that in some cases these effects are relatively long term.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dog ownership and physical activity: a review of the evidence.

            Dog walking is a strategy for increasing population levels of physical activity (PA). Numerous cross-sectional studies of the relationship between dog ownership and PA have been conducted. The purpose was to review studies comparing PA of dog owners (DO) to nondog owners (NDO), summarize the prevalence of dog walking, and provide recommendations for research. A review of published studies (1990-2010) examining DO and NDO PA and the prevalence of dog walking was conducted (N = 29). Studies estimating the relationship between dog ownership and PA were grouped to create a point- estimate using meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted in the last 5 years, were cross-sectional, and sampled adults from Australia or the United States. Approximately 60% of DO walked their dog, with a median duration and frequency of 160 minutes/week and 4 walks/week, respectively. Meta-analysis showed DO engage in more walking and PA than NDO and the effect sizes are small to moderate (d = 0.26 and d = 0.16, respectively). Three studies provided evidence of a directional relationship between dog ownership and walking. Longitudinal and interventional studies would provide stronger causal evidence for the relationship between dog ownership and PA. Improved knowledge of factors associated with dog walking will guide intervention research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Pet Factor - Companion Animals as a Conduit for Getting to Know People, Friendship Formation and Social Support

              Background While companion animals have been previously identified as a direct source of companionship and support to their owners, their role as a catalyst for friendship formation or social support networks among humans has received little attention. This study investigated the indirect role of pets as facilitators for three dimensions of social relatedness; getting to know people, friendship formation and social support networks. Methods A telephone survey of randomly selected residents in four cities, one in Australia (Perth; n = 704) and three in the U.S. (San Diego, n = 690; Portland, n = 634; Nashville, n = 664) was conducted. All participants were asked about getting to know people within their neighborhood. Pet owners were asked additional questions about the type/s of pet/s they owned, whether they had formed friendships as a result of their pet, and if they had received any of four different types of social support from the people they met through their pet. Results Pet owners were significantly more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than non-pet owners (OR 1.61; 95%CI: 1.30, 1.99). When analyzed by site, this relationship was significant for Perth, San Diego and Nashville. Among pet owners, dog owners in the three U.S. cities (but not Perth) were significantly more likely than owners of other types of pets to regard people whom they met through their pet as a friend (OR 2.59; 95%CI: 1.94, 3.46). Around 40% of pet owners reported receiving one or more types of social support (i.e. emotional, informational, appraisal, instrumental) via people they met through their pet. Conclusion This research suggests companion animals can be a catalyst for several dimensions of human social relationships in neighborhood settings, ranging from incidental social interaction and getting to know people, through to formation of new friendships. For many pet owners, their pets also facilitated relationships from which they derived tangible forms of social support, both of a practical and emotionally supportive nature. Given growing evidence for social isolation as a risk factor for mental health, and, conversely, friendships and social support as protective factors for individual and community well-being, pets may be an important factor in developing healthy neighborhoods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                carri.westgarth@liverpool.ac.uk
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                18 April 2019
                18 April 2019
                2019
                : 9
                : 5704
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, GRID grid.10025.36, Institute of Infection and Global Health, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, GRID grid.10025.36, Institute of Veterinary Science, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8190 6402, GRID grid.9835.7, Lancaster Medical School, , Lancaster University, ; Lancaster, UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8470, GRID grid.10025.36, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, , University of Liverpool, ; Liverpool, UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0368 0654, GRID grid.4425.7, School of Sport and Exercise Science, , Liverpool John Moores University, ; Liverpool, UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7910, GRID grid.1012.2, School of Population and Global Health, , The University of Western Australia, ; Perth, Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0471-2761
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7902-2178
                Article
                41254
                10.1038/s41598-019-41254-6
                6473089
                31000795
                f2f86d6a-f92d-4e7f-8ccd-9322e26b9d52
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 20 July 2018
                : 6 February 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000265, RCUK | Medical Research Council (MRC);
                Award ID: G1002402
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Uncategorized
                health policy,epidemiology,weight management
                Uncategorized
                health policy, epidemiology, weight management

                Comments

                Comment on this article