Pros and cons of pet ownership in sustaining independence in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although community services support ageing-in-place, older adults often report feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Unmet emotional needs are associated with poorer health, reduced functional abilities and increased mortality in this population. Pet ownership is an avenue worth exploring to reduce these adverse outcomes. This scoping review maps main findings and identifies key gaps with respect to the pros and cons of pet ownership in community-dwelling older adults pertaining to psycho-social, physical and functional outcomes. Scientific and grey literature published from January 2000 to July 2018 was searched. Data selection and extraction were performed by the first author and a sub-sample was co-validated by two co-authors. A total of 62 sources were included for descriptive and thematic analysis. A variety of pros (increased physical activity, wellbeing) and cons (grief, risk of falls) pertaining to psycho-social and physical outcomes were identified. Not many functional outcomes (support for daily routines) were mentioned, and few studies explored the simultaneous balance between the pros and cons of pet care. Further research exploring both clinicians’ and older pet owners’ perspectives is needed to deepen our understanding of the importance of considering companion animals in older adults’ daily lives and to strike a balance between perceived risks and benefits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".