Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35892542›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Fantastic Beasts and Why It Is Necessary to Understand Our Relationship-Animal Companionship under Challenging Circumstances Using the Example of Long-Covid.

Christine Krouzecky, Jan Aden, Katharina Hametner, Armin Klaps, Zuzana Kovacovsky, Birgit U Stetina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Control of companion animal parasites and impact on One Health.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Christine KrouzeckyPsychological Outpatient Clinic, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3054-081X
Jan AdenFaculty of Psychology, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.
Katharina HametnerFaculty of Psychology, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.
Armin KlapsPsychological Outpatient Clinic, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.
Zuzana KovacovskyPsychological Outpatient Clinic, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.
Birgit U StetinaPsychological Outpatient Clinic, Sigmund Freud University Vienna, 1020 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-8711-1923

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies in the field of human-animal interaction tend to highlight the positive results of the influence of animals on humans, which supports the popular belief that the human-animal bond positively affects humans' well-being ("pet-effect"). Nevertheless, contradictory results exist that seem especially visible since the COVID-19 pandemic, a prominent external stressor. Despite critical findings, individuals seem to want to believe in the beneficial effects of the human-animal relationship ("pet-effect paradox"). Based on this background, the present study aims to investigate this phenomenon using a mixed-method design. Therefore, animal caregivers were surveyed online and compared using psychometric measurements and open-ended questions. In this context, a special focus was placed on the additional stressor of Long-Covid and related concerns. The results demonstrate once more the existence of the "pet-effect paradox" due to a contradiction in the quantitative and qualitative results. At a quantitative level, the findings show additional burdens on animal caregivers who are confronted with multiple loads. However, the qualitative results indicate a belief in the beneficial effects of pets at the biopsychosocial level. Additionally, the data demonstrate a shift in focus away from the environment to oneself when affected by Long-Covid, which might affect the ability to care for an animal.

Indexed as

animal companionshipCOVID-19 pandemiccrisis responsehuman–animal bondLong-Covid affliction“pet-effect paradox”stress

Identifiers

PMID35892542
PMCPMC9330774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.