Cited by 442Human-Animal Interaction StudiesUrban Green Space and HealthAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Pet ownership and human health: a brief review of evidence and issues

Open access
McNicholas, June, Gilbey, Andrew, Rennie, Ann, Ahmedzai, Sam, Dono, Jo-Ann, Ormerod, Elizabeth·2005·BMJ

Abstract

Research into the association between pet ownership and human health has produced intriguing, although frequently contradictory, results often raising uncertainty as to whether pet ownership is advisable on health grounds

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Over time, the human-animal bond has changed, with the role of pets shifting from work animals to animals with a social function providing companionship.

    “Over time the human–animal bond has been changed. For instance, the role of pets has changed from work animals (protecting houses, catching mice) to animals with a social function, giving companionship.”
  • Due to major changes since the Second World War, such as increased leisure time and prosperity, and individualization of humans, animals are nowadays kept as pets and are regarded by many owners as valued family members, e.g., over 90% in the United Kingdom.

    “Due to major changes that have taken place in society since the Second World War, such as increased leisure time and prosperity, but also individualization of humans, animals are nowadays kept as pets and are regarded by many owners as valued family members, e.g., over 90% in the United Kingdom [13].”
  • Significantly less absenteeism from school through sickness among children who live with pets has been reported.

    “Significantly less absenteeism from school through sickness among children who live with pets has also been reported [13].”
  • Some authors doubt the generalized pet-effect on human mental and physical health because of conflicting results and lack of publication of negative results.

    “Some authors doubt the generalized pet-effect on human mental and physical health because of conflicting results that are prevalent in this area of science and the lack of publication of negative results [13,104,105,106].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McNicholas, J., Gilbey, A., Rennie, A., Ahmedzai, S., Dono, J.-A., & Ormerod, E.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • Royal Hallamshire Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
McNicholas, June
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-11-24
Volume
331
Issue
7527
Pages
1252-1254
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2032174595
Cited by
442
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 14
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
pet ownership, human health, companion animals, evidence review
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, Human-Animal Bond, Health Status, Humans, Mental Health

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