Cited by 159Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesUrban Green Space and Health

The Benefit of Pets and Animal-Assisted Therapy to the Health of Older Individuals

Open access
Cherniack, E. Paul, Cherniack, Ariella R.·2014·Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research

Abstract

Many studies utilizing dogs, cats, birds, fish, and robotic simulations of animals have tried to ascertain the health benefits of pet ownership or animal-assisted therapy in the elderly. Several small unblinded investigations outlined improvements in behavior in demented persons given treatment in the presence of animals. Studies piloting the use of animals in the treatment of depression and schizophrenia have yielded mixed results. Animals may provide intangible benefits to the mental health of older persons, such as relief social isolation and boredom, but these have not been formally studied. Several investigations of the effect of pets on physical health suggest animals can lower blood pressure, and dog walkers partake in more physical activity. Dog walking, in epidemiological studies and few preliminary trials, is associated with lower complication risk among patients with cardiovascular disease. Pets may also have harms: they may be expensive to care for, and their owners are more likely to fall. Theoretically, zoonotic infections and bites can occur, but how often this occurs in the context of pet ownership or animal-assisted therapy is unknown. Despite the poor methodological quality of pet research after decades of study, pet ownership and animal-assisted therapy are likely to continue due to positive subjective feelings many people have toward animals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2014/623203

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cherniack, E. P., & Cherniack, A. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Sha’arei Bina TAG, 1557 NE 164 Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162, USA
Corresponding author
Cherniack, E. Paul
Venue
Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research
Published
2014
Volume
2014
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 1687-7063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1687-7071
OpenAlex
W2025275284
Cited by
159
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
pet ownership, animal-assisted therapy, older adults, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, social isolation, blood pressure, dog walking, cardiovascular disease, falls, zoonoses, animal bites, mental health, physical 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