ABSTRACT
Pet ownership, the most common human-animal interaction, is believed to bestow positive health benefits onto pet owners. However, there is limited research on substantiating these assertions. The aim of this review was to systematically identify, evaluate, and summarize primary research on the relationship between cat and/or dog ownership and cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and obesity to inform future research on pet ownership and chronic disease. How pet ownership was defined/measured, and identification of the chronic disease variables and health behaviors most often measured were emphasized. Two researchers independently searched PubMed and Web of Science, where One Health literature are mostly likely to be indexed, for peer-reviewed literature on pet ownership and CVD, T2D, and obesity. A review of 4541 titles and abstracts for relevance resulted in 34 manuscripts eligible for full-text review. Two researchers assessed each eligible manuscript and extracted data only from those that met the inclusion criteria (n = 14). Ten studies on CVD, four studies on obesity, and zero studies on T2D met the study criteria. The CVD and obesity variables varied and were not well described. The relationship between pet ownership and CVD and obesity varied (positive, negative, mixed effects, and no effect). Generalizability lacked across all studies: most studies were with Non-Hispanic White populations. Other areas of weakness were quality of study outcomes and instrument validity. Operationalization of pet ownership varied (from no verification to confirmed pet registration). Integration of the evidence-based influence of the human-animal connection through pet ownership on CVD and obesity may make prevention, mitigation, and treatment strategies more robust.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: America's Health Rankings (AHR) is a state-level ranking of health determinants and outcomes produced annually by the United Health Foundation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine how states-particularly state health departments (SHDs)-respond to the annual AHR report. DESIGN: This study utilized a mixed methods approach involving key informant (KI) interviews in selected SHDs and a survey of the 50 state health officials (SHOs). SETTING: Key informants were interviewed at SHD offices in 9 states. The survey was conducted using an online format. PARTICIPANTS: Key informants included the SHO, senior staff in the SHD, and public health partners outside the SHD organization. Survey respondents were the SHO or designee.' MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness, use, utility, and value of AHR. RESULTS: Between the interviews and online survey, respondents from at least 40 of the 50 states indicated they were aware of AHR. Fifty-three interview sessions were conducted with 66 different KIs. Of the 37 states providing usable survey information, 20 (54%) reported that AHR was moderately, very, or extremely useful to their agency. Survey respondents indicated that the most common uses of AHR are for problem identification (54%), a source of data (49%), and for grant applications (38%). Regarding overall value of AHR to states, on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being no value to 10 being highly valuable, the mean score from survey respondents was 4.7. CONCLUSION: Although there is a wide spectrum of knowledge about AHR and responses to the annual report, the majority of SHDs respond in more positive than negative ways. Although the majority of SHOs are aware of AHR, there is less understanding of the methodology in the rankings at the programmatic level. The strongest call for change related to making the report more actionable, especially by identifying best practices.
