ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2019
Effect of Pets on Human Behavior and Stress in Disaster.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Progress and challenges in pet management in disasters: recommended strategies for developing countries - a scoping review.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Perceived Harm to Pet Health Associated with Human Quality of Life After a Public Health Disaster.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- The Well-Being of Companion Animal Caregivers and Their Companion Animals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- The Impact of COVID on Cat Guardians: Veterinary Issues.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Barriers to Care in Veterinary Services: Lessons Learned From Low-Income Pet Guardians' Experiences at Private Clinics and Hospitals During COVID-19.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
- Public Perceptions of Veterinarians from Social and Online Media Listening.Veterinary sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal-related consequences were not anticipated in disaster preparedness planning in Japan at the time of its massive earthquakes in 2011. Evacuation failure was quite common due to pet ownership in this disaster. Public attention to the welfare of affected animals in this disaster triggered an awareness of the importance of caring for their needs. However, research on human behavior toward pets or effect of pets on human during disasters remains sparse. In this study, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) scores among pet-owners and non-pet owners in Japan's 2011 earthquake disaster were compared, and attitudes toward pets were evaluated. A questionnaire was distributed to attendees, and interviews were performed at an annual animal welfare event. The Japanese-language version of the revised Impact of Event Scale was used to evaluate PTSD from the disaster. PTSD scores were higher in pet-owners compared to non-pet owners immediately after the earthquakes, but were lower in pet-owners compared to non-pet owners 4.4 years following the disaster. Most people opined that pets should evacuate with people, although less than half of non-pet owners agreed with having animals co-located at evacuation centers. In order to enhance safety and security of both humans and animals at evacuation centers, it is important to proactively address animal issues in disaster preparedness planning. Although pets were regarded by some as adverse risk factors for human health and safety during a disaster; this study instead suggests that pets may play an important positive and protective role for disaster victims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.