Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41947107›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2026

Self-reported handwashing frequency among pet and non-pet owners in the German adult population in 2023: a post-pandemic replication study.

Karolin M E Nettelrodt, Thomas von Lengerke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Karolin M E NettelrodtDepartment of Medical Psychology (OE 5430), Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany. nettelrodt.karolin@mh-hannover.de.
Thomas von LengerkeDepartment of Medical Psychology (OE 5430), Hannover Medical School (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover, 30625, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a previous analysis of data from four surveys of the German adult population conducted in the 2010s, i.e., 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2019, substantial differences between pet and non-pet owners had been found in terms of higher self-reported handwashing compliance among non-pet owners. This difference was especially pronounced for the indication “after touching animals”. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought increased attention to infection prevention and control regarding interactions of humans with animals, including pets. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that compliance rates may have changed to a certain degree. Using data from a survey conducted in post-pandemic 2023, our aim was to test this assumption by replicating the previous analyses and comparing pre- and post-pandemic compliance and reasons for non-compliance.

methodsData from a cross-sectional computer-assisted telephone survey of the German population from 16 to 85 years, conducted in the summer of 2023, was analyzed (N = 3,597). For nine different indications, handwashing compliance was defined as stating to (almost) always wash one’s hands in a given situation. Participants stating to rarely or (almost) never wash their hands were asked for possible reasons. The pre-pandemic data to which the present data is compared comes from the previous surveys conducted in 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2019, which had used the same methodologies. In statistical analyses, Chi²-tests, the Cohen’s d indicator, and multiple logistic regressions were used.

resultsAcross these time periods, pet owners were less likely to report handwashing after touching animals (35.5% pre-pandemic vs. 30.0% post-pandemic) in contrast to non-pet owners (55.7% pre-pandemic vs. 55.9% post-pandemic). The effect was found to be independent from potential confounders (p < 0.001). In contrast, compliance rates of pet and non-pet owners increased for other indications, in particular those associated with infection prevention measures highlighted in the context of the pandemic, e.g., before visiting someone weakened by disease. “Feeling that it is not necessary” remained the most confirmed reason for not washing hands among pet and non-pet owners (78.7% vs. 66.5%, d = 0.34).

conclusionTaken together, results suggest that pet owners seem to be more compliant in situations where handwashing serves the protection of other people. Thus, as one facet of promoting pandemic preparedness, more risk communication may be needed on how and why washing one’s hands after touching animals, including pets, is about protecting other people and oneself from infections.

Indexed as

COVID-19Hand DisinfectionOwnershipPetsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf ReportComplianceCOVID-19 pandemic impactHand hygieneInfection prevention/controlOverestimation biasPopulation surveillance

Identifiers

PMID41947107
PMCPMC13081525

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.