Pets can't work miracles with health, well-being

Their healing powers and beneficial attributes have been so highly touted in recent years, pets are beginning to earn a reputation as a medicine of sorts.

But it turns out, the benefits might say more about the people that own pets, than the pets themselves.

The list of things credited to companion animals — such as reducing heart-attack risks, lowering blood pressure and cholesterol, increasing physical fitness, soothing distress, lowered health-care costs and contributing to overall happiness — appears to grow daily.

A relatively new field of study, however, shows contradictions also emerge and the need for scientific scrutiny begins.

An age-old dynamic with research — the more studies done, the cloudier “the truth” can get.

For instance, one study reports owning a dog results in lower anxiety and better fitness, while another reports increased risk of disease, asthma, allergies, bite injuries and a higher incidence of heart attacks.

Plenty of studies point toward pets being beneficial for owners, but much of the research is inconclusive, contradictory or based on weak methods, according to a team of Rand Institute and UCLA researchers.

Validity of most new research on the topic, they state, is limited by small sample sizes, sample groups that don’t represent the general public, lack of long-term data and other issues.

While there’s compelling evidence out there, before anyone can conclude pets improve the long-term health of their people, one of the first questions that needs to be answered, they argue, is if pet owners might already be prone to better health because they’re somehow different than non-pet owners.

And apparently, the answer is yes.

Using information collected from 42,044 California residents who participated in a 2003 California Health Interview Survey, the researchers compared pet ownership data — almost 60 percent of respondents lived with either a dog, cat or both — against race, gender, marital status, home situation, economics and general health information.

Odds are highest that dog owners are females or married couples, white, younger, home owners with better general health, higher income levels, living in rural areas and in households where everyone works full time and works more hours per week, according to their report, published in late June.

Similarly, white, single women are most likely to own cats, while the higher body mass index and larger household size a respondent had — associated with less-positive health characteristics and more economic challenges — the lower the chances of cat ownership.

Knowing factors such as age, race, gender, employment status, income and housing are proven determinates for better health and can also be connected to pet ownership, the study authors concluded the people most likely to own pets already have a better foundation for positive health.

And if those factors are not accounted for, they said, it could lead researchers to overestimate, or, underestimate, the impact pets have on health.

While being cast as a health benefit has been good for pets, it’s a reminder good health won’t magically happen by critter alone — more likely, a combination of lower economic stress, healthy lifestyle, access to preventative health care and other factors do the most good.

But slobbery kisses and wagging tails probably can’t hurt.

Sharna Johnson is always searching for ponies. You can reach her at:

[email protected]