Family Bonds with Pets and Mental Health during COVID-19 in Australia: A Complex Picture

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to the health-promoting features of human-animal relationships, particularly for families with children. Despite this, the World Health Organization’s (1986) Ottawa Charter remains human-centric. Given the reciprocal health impacts of human-animal relationships, this paper aims to (i) describe perceived pet-related benefits, worries, and family activities; and to (ii) examine differences in perceived benefits, worries, and activities for parents and children with and without clinical mental health symptoms. We recruited 1034 Australian parents with a child < 18 years and a cat or dog via a national online survey between July and October 2020. Most parents reported their pet was helpful for their own (78%) and their child’s mental health (80%). Adjusted logistic regression revealed parents with clinical psychological distress were 2.5 times more likely to be worried about their pet’s care, well-being, and behaviour (OR = 2.56, p < 0.001). Clinically anxious children were almost twice as likely to live in a family who engages frequently in pet-related activities (e.g., cooked treats, taught tricks, OR = 1.82, p < 0.01). Mental health and perceived benefits of having a pet were not strongly associated. Data support re-framing the Ottawa Charter to encompass human-animal relationships, which is an often-neglected aspect of a socioecological approach to health.

Examining evidence for a relationship between human-animal interactions and common mental disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review

“…Of the 21 included studies ( Table 1 ), four were conducted in the United States ( 32 , 37 , 48 , 49 ), three in the United Kingdom ( 34 , 40 , 50 ), two in Canada ( 35 , 42 ), Australia ( 38 , 39 ), and across multiple countries ( 47 , 53 ). One study was conducted in each of the following countries: Brazil ( 41 ), New Zealand ( 43 ), Italy ( 44 ), Malaysia ( 45 ), Portugal ( 46 ), Japan ( 36 ), Singapore ( 51 ), and China ( 52 ).…”

“…Eleven of the included studies had samples greater than 1,000 participants ( 35 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 42 , 47 – 50 , 53 ). All studies included general populations of at least age 18 and over, one included a general population aged 19 and over ( 52 ), and one included a population of university students aged 18–23 years ( 36 ).…”

“…All studies included general populations of at least age 18 and over, one included a general population aged 19 and over ( 52 ), and one included a population of university students aged 18–23 years ( 36 ). Two studies included both parents and children in their study ( 38 , 39 ), from which we only pull findings from the parents' responses. Three studies included populations of older adults; one with a population aged 50 and older ( 42 ), one with a population of 60 and older ( 41 ), and one with a population aged 65–77 years ( 44 ).…”

“…Of the nine studies that did not use a scale to measure the quality of pet ownership, 55.6% collected information about the type of pet owned ( 35 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 53 ) (and/or engagement or interaction with pets (33.3%) ( 44 , 52 , 53 ). For those that used a validated scale, three utilized the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) ( 34 , 40 , 49 ), three utilized the Comfort from Companion Animal Scale (CCAS) ( 36 , 47 , 50 ), three used the Cat/Dog Owner Relationship Scale (C/DORS) ( 37 – 39 ), one used the Monash Dog-Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS) ( 46 ), one used the Zasloff Pet Attachment Support Measurement ( 32 ), one used the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) scale ( 37 ), one used the Pets in Australia Survey ( 39 ), and one used both the Pet Attachment Survey of the Center for the Study of Human-Animal Relationships and Environments and the Pet Attachment Questionnaire ( 51 ). Those that used a single item to elucidate whether a pet was present, asked: “Do you own an animal (Yes/No)?” And “What type of animal do you own?” Three also used survey questions to ascertain general engagement and relationships with animals, or the impact of pet owners' behaviors on their pets.…”

“…The mental health outcome measures used by the studies were categorized into three main types: (1) Population-Based measure, (2) Clinical Use (Diagnostic and Screening) measure, and (3) General Well-Being and Mental Health measures. The majority of studies ( n = 11) utilized one validated scale to measure outcomes ( 35 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 ), while the remaining ( n = 10) studies used multiple scales. Six of these used two validated scales ( 34 , 36 , 40 , 42 , 50 , 53 ), and four used three ( 32 , 43 , 45 , 48 ).…”