The relationship between pet ownership and human health is a topic of great interest to the community, but it’s not well understood in scientific circles.
Pets can benefit people in many ways. People who walk their dogs are more likely than other people to engage in conversation with them. This increased contact can be beneficial.
This is especially true for people who are socially isolated or vulnerable, such as older people and those with mental or physical disabilities. It is especially important for those who are socially vulnerable or isolated, including older people , people with mental and physical impairments or people with serious illnesses.
Positive interactions with animals can boost feel-good chemicals, including oxytocin. This hormone is linked to bonding as well as stress relief.
According to reports, pet owners also live longer and are healthier following a cardiac arrest. They also take less medication and see doctors less than non-pet owner.
Children who lived with cats or dogs as babies are less likely than other children to react to common allergies.
Most scientists still believe that despite the studies, the jury is out on the benefits to pet ownership.
Many research reports find that pet ownership has no health benefits or is even associated with a worsened health outcome.
Allergies in children who have pets around as babies are less common.
Even within a single research, the results can be complex.
Recent research in Sweden, which included over 40,000 participants, showed that pet owners were healthier than non-pet owners on the physical front, but they rated worse on indicators of psychological health.
What’s the story?
It’s very difficult to design definitive studies in this field of research.
Scientists typically divide participants into two groups when studying the effects a new drug. Participants and those in charge of data collection do not know if they are getting the real thing or a fake.
The drug’s effects can be safely blamed for any differences in the outcomes of the two groups. It is obvious that living animals cannot be assigned randomly to people who might not want them, or may not know how to properly care for them.
It’s impossible for the participants or researchers to know if someone has been assigned a pet, or a placebo. A big, furry dog is too hard to conceal inside a capsule of bright colors!
Most people who participate in human-animal research own pets because of their desire, and this is likely to affect the results.
Even in studies that show a link between pet ownership, and positive health outcomes, it is rare to say the pet was the cause of the outcome.
The results are likely to be biased because most people who participate in human-animal research own pets out of desire. Theron Trowbridge
Pet owners may be healthier, but it could also be that they are healthier and more likely to have pets. The list goes on.
The fact that every human-animal interaction is unique makes it difficult to conduct research.
It’s a bit like studying the effects of marriage. A perfect partnership will have many positive aspects, but a bad partnership can be disastrous.
Few studies consider the type of animal, whether it meets the needs of the owner, or the relationship between owner and pet.
These details of the relationship between animal and owner are likely to be critical in determining if pets are beneficial. Again, these factors are impossible to control when used in an experimental setting.
The researchers are trying to find a solution, but we can only say that pets benefit some people’s health at times.
Some people may not benefit from having a pet. For others, it could be an expensive exercise that can increase stress and cause health problems.
Pet ownership is most beneficial to people who have pets that meet their needs and fit into their lifestyle. They don’t even need to rely on science to know that they are happy with their animal companion.
