The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Household knowledge, attitudes and practices related to pet contact and associated zoonoses in Ontario, Canada
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“77% of households that obtained a new pet following a cancer diagnosis acquired a high-risk pet. 1,3”
From Reducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections (2015) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cellular and Molecular Immunology
Abbas, A. K., Lichtman, A. H., & Pillai, S. S. (1994) · Cited by 3,571
Veterinary Epidemiologic Research
Dohoo, I. R., Martin, S. W., & Stryhn, H. (2009) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,912
Cellular and Molecular Immunology
Denman, A. M. (1992) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.68.798.305 · Cited by 2,807
Lipscombe, L. L., & Hux, J. E. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60361-4 · Cited by 623
Liebetrau, A. M. (1983) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412984942 · Cited by 486
Raina, P., Waltner‐Toews, D., Bonnett, B., Woodward, C., & Abernathy, T. (1999) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb02996.x · Cited by 388
Zoonotic hepatitis E: animal reservoirs and emerging risks
Pavio, N., Meng, X., & Renou, C. (2010) · Veterinary Research · doi:10.1051/vetres/2010018 · Cited by 353
The human-companion animal bond: How humans benefit
Friedmann, E., & Son, H. (2009) · Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.10.015 · Cited by 299
Dean, J. A., & Wilson, K. (2008) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.043 · Cited by 290
Child Development and the Human-Companion Animal Bond
Melson, G. F. (2003) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764203255210 · Cited by 281
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Health Canada: Canada Health Act Annual Report 2009–2010. 2010, 978-1-100-16312-3:4.
- 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.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosis and treatment of dermatophytosis in dogs and cats.
Moriello, K. A., Coyner, K. S., Paterson, S., & Mignon, B. R. (2017) · Veterinary Dermatology · doi:10.1111/vde.12440 · Cited by 341
Morris, D. O., Loeffler, A., Davis, M. F., Guardabassi, L., & Weese, J. S. (2017) · Veterinary Dermatology · doi:10.1111/vde.12444 · Cited by 178
Self-citationReducing the risk of pet-associated zoonotic infections
Stull, J. W., Brophy, J., & Weese, J. S. (2015) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.141020 · Cited by 177
Self-citationPets' Impact on Your Patients' Health: Leveraging Benefits and Mitigating Risk
Hodgson, K. J., Barton, L., Darling, M., Antao, V., Kim, F., & Monavvari, A. A. (2015) · The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2015.04.140254 · Cited by 128
Pet husbandry and infection control practices related to zoonotic disease risks in Ontario, Canada
Stull, J. W., Peregrine, A. S., Sargeant, J. M., & Weese, J. S. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-520 · Cited by 92
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stull, J. W., Peregrine, A. S., Sargeant, J. M., & Weese, J. S.
- Affiliations
- Ontario Veterinary College (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Stull, Jason W
- Venue
- BMC Public Health
- Published
- 2012-07-25
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 553-553
- ISSN
- 1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
