Pets' value to family should be measured case by case

Playing, tousling, cuddling and napping side-by-side — a chubby tyke and fur ball romping through childhood together top the list of adorable images.

Not only are they well matched in their curious and playful approach to life, in recent years, living with pets has been promoted as beneficial to children.

Kids that grow up in homes with pets, researchers have said, are more likely to be well adjusted, less likely to have allergies, have higher activity levels and are generally healthier than children who do not.

Termed the “pet-health hypothesis,” similar research has pointed to health benefits for adult pet owners, an idea gaining traction among health practitioners, in the media and widely accepted in popular culture.

With popularity of the pet-health hypothesis growing, at least one research group is putting it to the test. In late June, a team of Rand Institute and UCLA health researchers released findings pointing to higher socioeconomic status of adult pet owners having greater influence on health than the pets themselves.

Child health benefits from pet ownership may also be exaggerated or misidentified, according to a second report from the Rand-UCLA team.

As in the June report, the team analyzed data from a 2003 California Health Interview Survey, which collected health and lifestyle information from 42,044 California residents over a year.

Released last week, the new analysis compared 2,200 children raised in homes with pet dogs or cats to 3,000 children raised in pet-free homes.

When compared simply by pet or no-pet status, children in homes with pets did appear better off in terms of health and psychological well-being.

Children from pet-owning households had better general health, weighed slightly more, were more physically active, more likely to be obedient and less likely for their parents to be concerned about their mood, behavior or learning abilities, according to the report.

But when researchers applied variables — they applied over 100, such as higher family income, language skills, or type of home — they said the presence of pets became statistically insignificant.

Though previous research has connected better child health and emotional well-being to being raised in homes with pets, none have analyzed such a large data sample or looked at underlying variables that could influence the results, which gives their analysis higher credibility, a Rand press release stated.

In the future, the team said the association between pet ownership and health can be further understood by long-term, experimental research in which individuals are randomly given pets and monitored over a decade or more to determine health outcomes — highly unlikely because such research would be too costly and difficult to conduct.

And once again, in the space of a couple of months, people are reminded pets are not a magical, universal solution to health or emotional woes.

It’s a valid point to make, especially when it comes to addressing medical issues, which are best resolved with education, resources and preventative care.

Pets are not guaranteed to make life better or improve health, and can even add stress and unpleasantness to a household depending on the circumstances and personalities involved.

To know if pets are good for you and your family, you have to self-evaluate and reach your own conclusion.

Does your pet make you smile, do you get more exercise, does the companionship of a fur ball bring your child out of their shell, give them something to care for and find comfort in?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, …well, then, there’s the answer.

Sharna Johnson is always searching for ponies. You can reach her at: [email protected]