Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28977402›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2018

'Simply to be let in': opening the doors to lower-income older adults and their companion animals.

A M Toohey, T M Krahn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Social Capital and Pets in Retirement Villages.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Companion Animal Fostering as Health Promotion: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A M TooheyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
T M KrahnNovel Tech Ethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP-130569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inspired by poet J.L. Borges's intimations on acceptance, this commentary highlights the eviction of an older woman and her kitten from an affordable independent living facility as representing exclusionary practices and policies that compromise the ability for some lower-income older adults to age-in-place. Even as efforts to promote aging-in-place have prioritized housing as a key need, and public health evidence suggests benefits from animal companionship later in life, there is a shortage of social and other types of affordable housing in Canada and elsewhere that allows older adult tenants to reside independently with companion animals. Within the private housing market, however, companion animals may be leveraged as a marketing tactic, with 'pets' being welcomed into rental arrangements. In light of this means-patterned discrepancy, this commentary troubles the persistent undervaluing of human-animal relationships that exists at policy and practice levels. Furthermore, banning companion animals from affordable housing subsumes an accepted yet insidious practise of regulating the lives of older adults who have not achieved idealized conceptions of responsible aging, including home ownership. We draw these two concerns together by advocating for adequate provision of affordable housing opportunities where lower-income older adults may be granted the choice to establish a home that includes a companion animal as they age-in-place.

Indexed as

PetsPovertyAgedAnimalsCanadaCatsFemaleHomes for the AgedHumansIndependent Living

Identifiers

PMID28977402
PMCPMC6166583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.