BackgroundDog-owners tend to be more physically active than non-owners; however, dogs have also been shown to inhibit physical activity for non-owners, under some circumstances.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify studies pertaining to the influence of dogs on physical activity for both dog-owners and non-owners, and adopted a critical realist orientation to draw inferences about the positive and negative impact of dogs via their affect on physical and social environments.ResultsWe identified 35 studies from disparate literatures for review. These studies confirm that dog and owner behaviors affect shared physical and social environments in ways that may influence physical activity patterns, not only among dog-owners but also among non-owners. The direction of influence appears to be most positive in neighborhoods exhibiting high levels of social cohesion, socioeconomic status, perceived safety, dominant culture, or all of these. In disadvantaged neighborhoods, the health of women as well as older adults may be disproportionately affected by dog and owner behavior.ConclusionsWhile dogs have the potential to increase physical activity for both dog-owners and non-owners, the presence or absence of dogs will not have a standard effect across the physical and social environments of all neighborhoods. Dogs' contributions to shared environments in ways that support physical activity for all must be leveraged. Thus, specific contextual factors must be considered in relation to dogs when planning neighborhood-level interventions designed to support physical activity. We suggest this population health topic merits further investigation.
Over one-third of older adults in many countries have a companion animal, and pets may harbor healthpromoting potential. Few studies have considered pet-ownership in relation to economic vulnerability, and pet-ownership has not been often considered within policy efforts to promote ageing-in-place. We conducted a mixed methods case study to understand perspectives of both community agencies that support ageingin-place and older adults themselves. A shortage of affordable, appropriate pet-friendly housing emerged as a challenge, even when framed as a legitimate choice and preference for many older adults. In this manuscript, we share the trajectories of three economically vulnerable older adults whose affordable housing needs became entangled with commitments to pets. Guided by dialogical narrative methodology, we offer each narrative as a short vignette to (i) illustrate the extent to which older adults will practice 'more-than-human solidarity' for a pet, even when their own well-being is compromised as a result; and (ii) highlight incongruence between the underlying moral values that shape solidaristic practices of individuals versus solidaristic arrangements that shape affordable housing opportunities. We suggest that housing rules and legislation that disrupt, rather than confirm, more-than-human solidarity may render older adults susceptible to, rather than protected from, deteriorating physical, mental and social well-being. We propose that collective solidaristic practices must reflect and subsume the moral complexity of solidarity practiced by individuals, to enable fair and equitable ageing-in-place.
The objective of this study was to assess whether pet ownership contributes to social participation and life satisfaction for older adults. We used baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) for this purpose, and logistic regression models to estimate associations between social participation and life satisfaction for pet owners and non-owners. One third of all older adults (≥ 65 years, n = 7,474) in our sample reported pet ownership. Pet owners were less likely than non-pet owners to report life satisfaction and to participate frequently in social, recreational, or cultural activities, but pet owners were no less satisfied than were non-owners with their current levels of social participation. For pet owners experiencing barriers to social participation, pets appeared protective of life satisfaction in some circumstances. Both individual characteristics and structural factors linked to the World Health Organization's age-friendly communities framework were relevant to understanding these findings.
Inspired by poet J.L. Borges's intimations on acceptance, this commentary highlights the eviction of an older woman and her kitten from an affordable independent living facility as representing exclusionary practices and policies that compromise the ability for some lower-income older adults to age-in-place. Even as efforts to promote aging-in-place have prioritized housing as a key need, and public health evidence suggests benefits from animal companionship later in life, there is a shortage of social and other types of affordable housing in Canada and elsewhere that allows older adult tenants to reside independently with companion animals. Within the private housing market, however, companion animals may be leveraged as a marketing tactic, with 'pets' being welcomed into rental arrangements. In light of this means-patterned discrepancy, this commentary troubles the persistent undervaluing of human-animal relationships that exists at policy and practice levels. Furthermore, banning companion animals from affordable housing subsumes an accepted yet insidious practise of regulating the lives of older adults who have not achieved idealized conceptions of responsible aging, including home ownership. We draw these two concerns together by advocating for adequate provision of affordable housing opportunities where lower-income older adults may be granted the choice to establish a home that includes a companion animal as they age-in-place.
OBJECTIVES: Our study objectives were to: 1) estimate differences in perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment among non-dog-owners, owners who walk their dogs (dog-walkers) and owners who do not walk their dogs (non-dog-walkers), and 2) estimate associations between perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment and dog-walking frequency.METHOD: A random cross-section of Calgary adults completed telephone interviews during August-October 2007 (n = 2,199, response rate = 33.6%) or January-April 2008 (n = 2,223, response rate = 36.7%). Telephone interviews and a follow-up questionnaire captured physical activity, health and sociodemographic characteristics, dog-ownership, and perceived built environment characteristics. Using ANOVA, we compared the perceived built environment among non-dog-owners, non-dog-walkers and dog-walkers. For dog-owners only, logistic regression estimated associations (odds ratios: OR) between dogwalking participation and perceived built environment. Among dog-walkers, logistic regression estimated associations between dog-walking ≥4 times/week and perceived built environment. Furthermore, among dog-walkers, linear regression estimated associations (unstandardized β) between dog-walking frequency and perceived built environment. RESULTS:Compared with dog-walkers, non-dog-owners reported more positive perceptions of neighbourhood street connectivity, pedestrian infrastructure, and walkability (p < 0.05). Among dog-walkers, aesthetics was positively associated (p < 0.05) with the likelihood of walking the dog ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.67) and dog-walking frequency (covariate-adjusted-β = 0.15). Among dog-walkers, walkability was also positively associated (p < 0.05) with dog-walking ≥4 times in a usual week (covariate-adjusted-OR = 1.03) and dog-walking frequency (covariateadjusted-β = 0.05). CONCLUSION:Perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment appear to differ between non-dog-owners and dog-owners. While built environment improvements may not encourage owners to initiate dog-walking, creating attractive and walkable neighbourhoods may support regular dog-walking among owners already walking their dogs.KEY WORDS: Physical activity; dogs; neighbourhood; built environment; walking La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.
At the convergence of population aging and pet-ownership, community stakeholders are well-positioned to support older adults’ relationships with companion animals through age-related transitions in health and living arrangements. In this study’s setting, a volunteer-based pet care assistance program launched in 2017 to provide practical assistance with pet care for socially disadvantaged, community-dwelling older adults. This case study explored the impacts and feasibility of this and similar programs via (i) an Internet-based environmental scan to compare similar programs and (ii) qualitative interviews with a sampling of diverse community stakeholders (n = 9). A small number of comparable international programs (n = 16) were found. Among these, programs were delivered using a range of funding models; fewer than half involved collaborations across human social services and animal welfare sectors; and none addressed all dimensions of support offered by our local program. Analysis of qualitative interviews highlighted five major themes confirming the value of the volunteer-based approach and the importance of cross-sectoral collaborations in addressing older adults’ under-recognized pet care-related needs. Taken together, the findings confirmed the effectiveness of our local program model. Collaborative, cross-sectoral programs that target both human and companion animal well-being hold promise to reduce barriers to pet ownership that many disadvantaged older adults face. This unique approach leverages the health-promoting potential of human-animal relationships in ways that enhance quality of life for individuals, animal welfare, and age-friendliness of communities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.