Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31138578›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Dog ownership, the natural outdoor environment and health: a cross-sectional study.

Wilma L Zijlema, Hayley Christian, Margarita Triguero-Mas, Marta Cirach, Magdalena van den Berg, Jolanda Maas, Christopher J Gidlow, Hanneke Kruize, Wanda Wendel-Vos, Sandra Andrušaitytė and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The COVID-19 pandemic affects owners walking with their dogs.Journal of veterinary behavior : clinical applications and research : official journal of : Australian Veterinary Behaviour Interest Group, International Working Dog Breeding Association · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

13 authors.

Wilma L ZijlemaInstituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6257-5091
Hayley ChristianSchool of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Margarita Triguero-MasInstituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Marta CirachInstituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Magdalena van den BergEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jolanda MaasDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christopher J GidlowCentre for Sport, Health and Exercise Research, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Hanneke KruizeCentre of Environmental Health Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Wanda Wendel-VosNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Sandra AndrušaitytėDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Regina GrazulevicieneDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Jill LittInstituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mark J NieuwenhuijsenInstituto de Salud Global Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDog owners walking their dog in natural outdoor environments (NOE) may benefit from the physical activity facilitated by dog walking and from time spent in nature. However, it is unclear whether dog owners receive additional health benefits associated with having access to NOE above the physical activity benefit of walking with their dog. We investigated associations between dog ownership, walking, time spent in NOE and health and whether these associations differed among those with good and poor access to NOE and those living in green and less green areas.

designCross-sectional study.

settingThe Positive Health Effects of the Natural Outdoor Environment in Typical Populations in Different Regions in Europe project.

participantsn=3586 adults from Barcelona (Spain), Doetinchem (the Netherlands), Kaunas (Lithuania) and Stoke-on-Trent (UK). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated access to NOE with land maps and residential surrounding greenness with satellite data. Leisure time walking, time spent in NOE and general and mental health status were measured using validated questionnaires. Associations were estimated using multilevel analysis with a random intercept defined at the neighbourhood level.

resultsDog ownership was associated with higher rates of leisure time walking and time spending in NOE (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.54 and 2.37, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.79, respectively). These associations were stronger in those living within 300 m of a NOE and in greener areas. No consistent associations were found between dog ownership and perceived general or mental health status.

conclusionsCompared with non-dog owners, dog owners walked more and spent more time in NOE, especially those living within 300 m of a NOE and in greener areas. The health implications of these relationships should be further investigated. In a largely physically inactive society, dog walking in NOE may be a simple way of promoting physical activity and health.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorPetsAdultAgedAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesDogsEnvironment DesignFemaleHumansLithuaniaMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOwnershipResidence Characteristicsepidemiologymental healthpublic health

Identifiers

PMID31138578
PMCPMC6549751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.