Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress
Abstract
A number of researchers have explored the relationship between companion animal ownership and human physical and psychological health. Results have been inconclusive, with positive, neutral and negative effects variously reported in the literature. Furthermore, the possible mechanisms of any influence are frustratingly unclear. A number of conceptual and methodological weaknesses have hampered progress in our understanding of how companion animals may impact upon human health. The two evidence gaps discussed in this paper, with suggestions for needed next steps, are: (i) a preponderance of anecdotal reports and cross-sectional research designs; and (ii) failure to control for a host of other known influences on human health including health habits, level of attachment to the companion animal and human social supports. Finally, an example of these gaps is provided in relation to the literature on the effects of animals on elderly nursing home residents.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The majority of research evidence on pet-effect was considered inconclusive due to methodological limitations such as reliance on self-reports, small sample sizes, homogeneous populations, varying research designs, narrow outcome variables, and cross-sectional designs.
“The majority of research evidence was also considered inconclusive due to methodological limitations such as reliance on self-reports, small sample sizes that may not be representative of the general population, homogeneous populations, varying research designs, narrow range of outcome variables that were examined, and the use of cross-sectional designs that do not consider long-term health outcom”
From A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects. (2020) · cites this paper as [108]
Cites
Social Relationships and Health.
Cohen, S. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.8.676 · Cited by 4,852 · see citing works
Allen, K. (2002) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000024236.11538.41 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Overgaauw, P. A. M., Vinke, C. M., van Hagen, M. A. E., & Lipman, L. J. A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17113789 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chur-Hansen, A., Stern, C., & Winefield, H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Venue
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 140-146
- ISSN
- 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1527412706
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
- Keywords
- companion animals, human health, evidence gaps, pet ownership, mental health, physical health, cross-section design, social support, nursing home residents, older adults
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Animals, Human-Animal Bond, Health Status, Humans, Mental Health, Ownership, Research Design, Pets
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
