CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 118Zoonotic diseases and public healthInfection Control in HealthcareSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology

Household knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet contact and associated zoonoses in Ontario, Canada

Open access
Stull, Jason W, Peregrine, Andrew S, Sargeant, Jan M, Weese, J Scott·2012·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-12-553PMC PMC3489606
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many human infections are transmitted through contact with animals (zoonoses), including household pets. Although pet ownership is common in most countries and non-pet owners may have frequent contact with pets, there is limited knowledge of the public's pet contact practices and awareness of zoonotic disease risks from pets. The objective of this study was to characterize the general public's knowledge, attitudes and risks related to pet ownership and animal contact in southern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to individuals at two multi-physician clinics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada during 2010. A single adult from each household was invited to participate in the study. RESULTS: Seventy five percent (641/853) of individuals approached completed the questionnaire. Pet ownership and contact were common; 64% of participants had a pet in their household and 37% of non-pet owning households had a member with at least weekly animal contact outside the home. Pet ownership was high (55%) for households with individuals at higher risk for infections (i.e., < 5 yrs, ≥ 65 yrs, immunocompromised). Most respondents (64%) indicated that they had never received information regarding pet-associated disease risks. When given a list of 11 infectious pathogens, respondents were only able to correctly classify just over half on their potential to be transmitted from pets to people (mean 6.4); independently, pet owners and those who recalled receiving information in the past about this topic were able to make significantly more correct identifications. Pet (36%) and non-pet owning households (10%) reported dog or cat bites or scratches during the preceding year. Households with individuals at higher risk for an infection did not differ from the remaining households regarding their perceived disease risk of pets, zoonotic disease knowledge, recall of being asked by their medical provider if they owned any pets, or recall of having received information regarding pet-associated disease risks and preventive measures. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there is a need for accessible zoonotic disease information for both pet and non-owning households, with additional efforts made by veterinary, human and public health personnel. Immediate educational efforts directed toward households with individuals at higher risk to infections are especially needed.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-12-553

Cites

47 of 47 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

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?

  • Close, intimate interactions with pets, such as sleeping in beds with owners and face licking, are common.

    “close, intimate interactions with pets (e.g., sleeping in beds with owners, face licking) are common. 1,2”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Background states that pets often have close interactions with household members, including sleeping in beds and licking hands. It does not mention face licking, so that specific example is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More than 75% of households have contact with a pet.

    “One large, regional survey reported more than 75% of households having contact with a pet, 1”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Discussion reports that over 75% of respondent households had a member with frequent animal contact, but that includes contact with animals outside the home, not necessarily pets. The Results report that 63.7% of respondents had a household pet. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The general public and people at high risk for pet-associated disease are not aware of the risks associated with high-risk pet practices or recommendations to reduce them.

    “Additional surveys suggest that the general public and people at high risk for pet-associated disease are not aware of the risks associated with highrisk pet practices or recommendations to reduce them”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Conclusions (page not provided) report limited awareness of pet-associated zoonotic risks, with no greater awareness in households containing people at increased risk of infection. The Discussion (page not provided) says those households were no more likely to recall receiving information about risks and preventive measures. The study does not establish that respondents were unaware of specific high-risk pet practices or recommendations to reduce their risks. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Patient surveys and epidemiologic studies suggest that the occurrence of pet-associated disease is low overall.

    “Patient surveys and epidemiologic studies on the topic suggest that the occurrence of pet associated disease is low overall. 1,8”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Physicians do not regularly ask about pet contact or discuss the risks of zoonotic diseases with patients, regardless of the patient's immune status.

    “studies suggest physicians do not regularly ask about pet contact, nor do they discuss the risks of zoonotic diseases with patients, regardless of the patient's immune status. 1,3,4”

    From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Alves MC Matos MR Reichmann Mde L Dominguez MH Estimation of the dog and cat population in the State of Sao Paulo Rev Saude Publica 2005 39 891 897 16341397
  2. Stull JW Carr AP Chomel BB Berghaus RD Hird DW Small animal deworming protocols, client education, and veterinarian perception of zoonotic parasites in western Canada Can Vet J 2007 48 269 276 17436903 PMC1800965

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stull, J. W., Peregrine, A. S., Sargeant, J. M., & Weese, J. S.
Affiliations
Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
Corresponding author
Stull, Jason W
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-07-25
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
553-553
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2458-12-553
PMC
PMC3489606
OpenAlex
W2121289164
Cited by
118
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • IslandScholar (University of Prince Edward Island) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Guelph
  • McMaster University
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Zoonotic diseases and public health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Keywords
zoonoses, household pets, pet ownership, human-animal contact, disease risk perception, immunocompromised patients, health education, Ontario
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Animals, Attitude to Health, Cats, Child, Child, Preschool, Dogs, Family Characteristics, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Ontario, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Zoonoses, Young Adult, 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