Association between Pet Ownership and Mental Health and Well-Being of Canadians Assessed in a Cross-Sectional Study during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess the association between pet ownership and quality of life (QoL), loneliness, anxiety, stress, overall health, and mental health of Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic using a One Health perspective. An online bilingual survey was completed by 1500 Canadians in April-May 2021. Socio-demographics, health, QoL, stress and anxiety, loneliness, social support, pet ownership, and attitude towards pets data were collected. Crude and adjusted associations between pet ownership and mental health and well-being indicators were estimated. The 1500 participants were from all provinces and territories, half were women; half of the participants were pet owners by design. The crude association estimates showed that pet owners had poorer QoL, overall health, and mental health than non-pet owners, and were lonelier, more stressed, and more anxious than non-pet owners. Adjusted estimates showed that these associations disappeared with the inclusion of the confounders (socio-economic, demographic, health, and pet-related variables). Our results suggest that there was no association between pet ownership and the mental health and well-being indicators measured in the present study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".