Skip to main content
NCBI home page
BMC Public Health logoLink to BMC Public Health
. 2025 Nov 7;25:3850. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-25224-4

From furry friends to fit teens: unveiling the role of active dog breeds in shaping adolescent physical activity and screen time behaviors

Saša Đurić 1,✉, Vedrana Sember 2, Maroje Sorić 2,3, Gregor Starc 2, Gregor Jurak 2
PMCID: PMC12595751  PMID: 41204234

Abstract

Background

Despite the known benefits of regular physical activity (PA) for a healthy lifestyle and well-being, studies suggest that the level of PA decreases dramatically during adolescence, especially in girls as the most vulnerable group. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between ownership of different active dog breeds, PA, and screen time in adolescents.

Methods

This cross-sectional study utilized data collected in 2013–2014 as part of the Analysis of Children’s Development in Slovenia (ACDSi) study. The sample included 2789 adolescents (1491 boys) aged 14.8 ± 2.4 years. Adolescent dog ownership, anthropometry, and physical activity (SHAPES questionnaire) were assessed.

Results

The results showed that family dog ownership is generally associated with increased moderate-to-vigorous PA levels (MVPA) and decreased screen time in girls, but not in boys. This study demonstrated that highly active dog breeds had a stronger association with adolescent MVPA levels and screen time than low and moderately active dog breeds. Girls living in households with a dog had 13 more minutes (95% CI = 0.5–25.3), girls who primarily walked their dog had 21 more minutes (95% CI = 2.2–39.1), and girls who owned highly active dog breeds accumulated 34 more minutes (95% CI = 14.9–51.6) of MVPA per day compared to girls without a dog. Living in a household with a dog increased the odds of reaching the PA recommendations (at least 60 min of MVPA per day) by 39% for girls. These odds increased by 118% for girls who primarily walked the dog. Moreover, owning a moderately active or highly active dog breed increased girls’ odds by 60% and 69%, respectively.

Conclusion

These novel findings provide us with valuable information that could be an additional tool to improve the lifestyle of this vulnerable group of adolescent girls.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-25224-4.

Keywords: Highly active dog, Low active dog, Moderately active dog, MVPA, PA recommendations

Background

Physical inactivity has emerged as a major public health concern [1, 2] and is found to be associated with youth obesity and type II diabetes, and a range of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular conditions [3–5]. Despite the known importance of regular PA and its benefits in promoting a healthy lifestyle and well-being, studies suggest that PA levels decrease dramatically during adolescence [6, 7] with boys being significantly more active than girls [7–9], making girls the most vulnerable group to adverse outcomes during adolescence. These findings highlight the urgent need for robust investigations into effective models for successful PA interventions to combat this concerning trend [10, 11].

Challenges persist in the effectiveness of programs aimed at promoting PA among adolescents [12]. However, a compelling strategy that holds great potential is the support and motivation derived from dog ownership. Researchers are increasingly exploring the impact of owning a dog as a means to enhance daily activity levels for a significant portion of the population [13–16]. Notably, studies have demonstrated that dog ownership among adults is associated with increased PA [14, 17–19] and a higher likelihood of meeting recommended PA levels of at least 150 min of MVPA per week [14, 19, 20]. Furthermore, family dog ownership and engaging in dog walking have been linked to various physical, social, and mental health benefits. These findings emphasize the untapped potential of canine companionship in fostering adolescent PA and overall well-being [13, 21, 22].

While the association between family dog ownership, PA, and health in adults is becoming increasingly clear, the nature of this association in children and adolescents has been less investigated and has not received much attention until the last decade [23–30]. Similar to adults, these studies generally show a benefit of owning a family dog for PA in children and adolescents [23, 31, 32]. For example, Christian et al. [23] found that Australian children who lived in households with dogs walked about 30 min more per week and were 49% more likely to reach recommended levels of PA (at least 60 min of MVPA per day) than children who did not own a family dog. In general, there is a lack of studies in the adolescent age group. Studies that addressed dog ownership investigated mental well-being [33], overall health [34], loneliness [35] and development of adolescents [36]. However, there are only few studies that address dog ownership and physical activity in adolescents [24, 25, 27, 34, 37]. The main findings showed that adolescents who owned a dog were generally more active than their peers without a dog in the household [24, 25, 27], while some studies showed that walking a dog in adolescence was not associated with objectively measured PA [34, 37].

Despite a lack of comprehensive intervention studies utilizing dog ownership to increase PA levels, existing research suggests potential benefits. Some studies have indicated positive effects of family dog ownership and dog walking on fitness, weight status in childhood [38], and advantages for children with autism spectrum disorder [39]. While most of these studies demonstrated positive effects of family dog ownership on the aforementioned variables, the evidence regarding PA is conflicting. It is plausible that walking with dogs serves as a substitution for other forms of PA, as certain studies report only marginal increases [40] or similar [41] accumulated weekly minutes of PA between dog owners and non-dog owners. Additionally, findings suggest that the specific characteristics of pets, such as the size, breed, and activity level affect their energy needs. For instance, larger hunting dogs, as highlighted by Ahlstrøm [42], exhibit slightly higher daily energy expenditure. Gerth and colleagues [43] developed an equation indicating that larger, active kennel dogs may require more energy, while Phillips and colleagues [44] noted high energy demands in larger breeds like explosive detection dogs. Furthermore, Dobenecker’s research [45] revealed that during growth, larger breeds necessitate more energy, and Loftus [46] emphasized the variable energy requirements for sled dogs, influenced by factors such as load and terrain. Bryce [47] even underscored energy-saving mechanisms in larger northern breed dogs, while Bermingham with his meta-analysis [48] added to this body of research by suggesting that factors beyond body weight should be considered for accurate energy estimation. This collective research suggests that a dog’s size and breed can significantly impact the energy expended by dog walkers. Larger breeds, such as Siberian Huskies and Labrador Retrievers, are typically associated with higher energy requirements [48, 49]. Interestingly, northern breed dogs, which are often larger, may require less energy for walking due to their energy-saving mechanisms [47]. Additionally, the size and energy level of a dog can influence the walking behavior of their owners, potentially resulting in higher energy expenditure for dog walkers with medium to large dogs [41]. Nevertheless, the relationship between dog size and physical activity remains complex and requires further study for a comprehensive understanding.

Despite the growing interest in this research topic, most studies have still been conducted on the adult and elderly population, thus further research on children and adolescents is needed. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study has examined the moderating effect of different active dog breeds on the association between family dog ownership and PA in children and adolescents. Only in one study from the UK children reported whether they owned “bull breeds” or not. The results indicated that children who owned a bull breed were more likely to walk their own dog and walk with their friends than children who did not own a bull breed [16]. However, the aforementioned study did not investigate the association between different dog breeds and PA level. In addition, a few studies have investigated the relationship between dog ownership and screen time in children, but no associations have been reported [23, 50–52].

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between owning a family dog and PA levels and screen time in children and adolescents. Furthermore, it aims to investigate how is owning differently active dog breeds associated with PA levels and screen time in children and adolescents.

Methods

Participants

Data for the present study were obtained from the 2013-2014 data collection phase of The Analysis of Children’s Development in Slovenia (ACDSi) study, which monitors the physical and motor development of Slovenian children and adolescents [53, 54] and has been conducted every 10 years for the past five decades. The study used a sentinel approach to obtain a nationally representative sample of adolescents from 10 different primary school sites stratified by four Slovenian settlement types and regions (village, rural town, industrial town, and city) and from 16 secondary schools stratified by 3 types of educational programmes (grammar/general, technical, vocational).

The primary sampling unit was the school and the secondary was a class. In 2013, our sample included 1417 adolescents in the 11–14 age group and in 2014, 1,462 adolescents in the 15–19 age group. Therefore, 11- to 14-year-olds from the 2013 ACDSi and 15 to 19-year-olds from the 2014 ACDSi of both genders were randomly included for this study. The total sample comprised 2789 adolescents (1491 boys). The mean age of the adolescents included in the present study was 14.8 ± 2.4 years (see detailed sample characteristics in Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics

Individual characteristics No dog Any dog Breed activity subgroups
Total sample
(n = 2789)		 A
(n = 1669)		 B1
(n = 621)		 B2
(n = 499)		 LAB
(n = 201)		 MAB
(n = 530)		 HAB
breeds (n = 389)
Adolescent age 14.8 (2.4) 14.6 (2.4) 15.1 (2.4) 14.6 (2.4) 14.7 (2.4) 14.9 (2.4) 14.9 (2.4)
Adolescent gender (male) 1491 (53%) 923 (55%) 346 (56%) 222 (44%) 98 (49%) 259 (49%) 211 (54%)
BMI 21.3 (3.7) 21.1 (3.7) 21.4 (3.7) 21.5 (3.9) 21.3 (3.8) 21.5 (3.7) 21.5 (3.9)
Sum of 5 skinfolds 64.2 (29.4) 63.6 (28.6) 65.2 (30.8) 65.3 (30.3) 68.2 (29.2) 63.2 (27.4) 65.2 (30.5)
Meet PA recommendations 1751 (63%) 1018 (61%) 400 (64%) 333 (67%) 112 (56%) 352 (66%) 269 (69%)
Father with college degree 593 (21.3%) 369 (22.1%) 142 (22.9%) 82 (16.4%) 42 (20.9%) 123 (23.2%) 59 (15.2%)
Mother with college degree 923 (33.1%) 526 (31.5%) 211 (34.0%) 128 (25.6%) 58 (28.8%) 173 (32.6%) 108 (27.8%)
High SES 1201 (43.1%) 722 (43.2%) 278 (44.8%) 201 (40.3%) 85 (42.3%) 220 (41.5%) 174 (44.7%)
Open in a new tab

A. No dog; B1. Not primary walkers; B2. Primary walkers

All models for MVPA control for adolescent age, BMI and sum of skinfolds. Values shown are means (SD) or number of participants (%)

 BMI Body mass index, HAB Highly active dog breeds, LAB Low active dog breeds, MAB Moderately active dog breeds, PA Physical activity, SES Socioeconomic status

Measuring procedures

Physical education teachers were appointed as coordinators in each school and were to assist in preparing the measurement plan, obtaining consent forms, and other organizational tasks. The measurements lasted 2 or 3 days, depending on how large the sample was at each school. They took place between 8:00 am and 2:00 pm each day. Anthropometric measurements included body weight, height, BMI, and the sum of the five skinfolds. Although BMI percentiles or z-scores are typically recommended for children and adolescents, BMI calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m²) is also frequently used as a continuous variable in regression analyses and group comparisons in adolescent studies [55]. In our study, BMI was included as a covariate to adjust for general body size rather than as a diagnostic indicator of weight status. Similarly, skinfold thickness measurements are widely recognized for assessing subcutaneous fat in youth and have been validated in this age group [56]. Body height was measured with an anthropometer accurate to 1 mm (Siber & Hegner, Zurich, Switzerland). A portable electronic scale accurate to 100 grams was used to measure body mass (Tanita BWB-800P, Arlington Heights, IL, USA). Accuracy was checked each time the scale was moved. To measure the skinfolds: Biceps, Triceps, Suprailiac, Subscapular and Calf folds, the Harpenden Fat Caliper was used (Baty International Ltd., Burgess Hill, UK).

Patterns of PA were assessed using the School Health Action, Planning and Evaluation System (SHAPES) PA questionnaire [57]. For our study, we created a web-based questionnaire that had the same layout as the original paper version and added questions about family dog ownership, socioeconomic status (SES), and parental education. Note that adolescents completed the SHAPES questionnaire, and that parents were asked to report SES and parental education. Two items required a seven-day recall of vigorous PA and moderate PA. Vigorous PA was defined as ‘‘jogging, team sports, fast dancing, jump-rope, and any other physical activity that increases your heart rate and makes you breathe hard and sweat.’’ Moderate PA was defined as ‘‘lower intensity physical activities such as walking, biking to school, and recreational swimming.’’ Responses are provided by indicating the number of hours and 15-minute increments that each type of physical activity was performed for each day of the previous week. Data on intensity, duration, and frequency were collected in this manner. Additional questions asked about the screen time (TV, computer, telephone) were summed to obtain an estimate of total screen time and also required a seven-day recall. The SHAPES questionnaire has acceptable reliability (the overall kappa/weighted kappa coefficient for test–retest reliability for MVPA was 0.57 +/- 0.24) and validity (Spearman r with accelerometer-measured average daily time spent performing MVPA = 0.44), and is suitable for use in a large-scale school-based data collection for children and adolescents [58]. PA was expressed as MVPA in minutes per day for the purposes of the present study.

Dog breeds were characterized as low active (Great Danes and defensive dogs - Mastiff, Rottweiler, companion dogs – Bulldog, Maltese), moderately active (Greyhounds, Spitz Terriers, Retrievers - Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever) and highly active (various hunting dogs - Hounds and Birders, Polar dogs, Pinschers - e.g., German Pinschers). Participants were asked to place their dog in one of the groups listed. In the event that they did not know which group to place their dog in, they were asked to rank them according to how active they thought their dog was. In households with multiple dogs of different activity levels, the adolescent was categorized according to the highest activity level present. The questionnaire was developed for the purposes of this study (Supplementary Material: Appendix 1). A similar categorization has been used elsewhere following the C-BARQ energy factor. This tool has shown that although most of the selected breeds have average energy levels, the Australian Shepherd, Boxer, Doberman Pinscher, and German Shorthaired Pointers have relatively high average energy levels, while the Bulldog, Great Dane, and English Mastiff have relatively low levels [59]. The questionnaire mentioned above also included the question of who mainly walks the family dog.

Data collection

Informed consent was obtained from all the participants and their parents or legal guardians involved in the study. Anthropometric measurements were performed by a highly qualified team of researchers according to the prescribed protocol [53, 54]. Participants then indicated whether they lived in a household with or without a dog, whether they were primary walkers (meaning that they walked the dog most often), and what breed of dog they owned. Then, participants indicated their level of PA using the previously validated SHAPES questionnaire [58]. In addition, the parents reported their socioeconomic status and parental education. National Medical Ethics Committee approval was granted in June 2013 (ID 138/05/136). Note that the research has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences - SPSS v 27.0 for Windows (IBM, Chicago, Illinois, USA) was used for data processing and analysis. Descriptive statistics are presented as means, standard deviations, percentages and 95% confidence intervals. Boys and girls were analysed separately. The differences in SES between the different groups of participants according to dog ownership were tested using the Pearson Chi-Square test and, as indicated in the results, did not differ significantly between the dog ownership groups (p = 0.620) and were therefore not included in the adjusted main models. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare differences in MVPA minutes among the following groups: (A) Adolescents without a family dog; (B) Adolescents with a family dog; B1. Adolescents who are not primary walkers; B2. Adolescents who are primary walkers; LAB - Adolescents who own low active dog breeds; MAB - Adolescents who own moderately active dog breeds; HAB - Adolescents who own highly active dog breeds; All models were controlled for age, BMI, and the sum of five skinfolds. Covariates were selected a priori based on their established relationships with adolescent PA (age, BMI, skinfold sum). The same analysis was used to investigate the differences between these groups on weekdays and weekends. In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences between the same groups for screen time. The ANCOVA was applied within the general linear model framework, where adjusted means (estimated marginal means) and their pairwise differences with 95% confidence intervals were reported. The Bonferroni post hoc test was used multiple times for comparisons in both types of analyses. Finally, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals from the logistic regression model were calculated for predicting the odds for meeting PA recommendations in different groups of participants. Because ORs can exaggerate relative differences when outcomes are common, the absolute prevalences in each group were reported to provide additional context. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Overall, 40.2% (n = 1120) of adolescents reported living in a household with at least one dog, while 59.8% (n = 1669) did not. Among dog owners, 17.9% had low-active breeds (LAB), 47.4% moderately active breeds (MAB), and 34.7% highly active breeds (HAB). The general characteristics of the sample, stratified by family dog ownership and dog breed owned, are shown in Table 1.

Pearson Chi-Square test showed no significant differences between the different groups of participants in terms of SES (p = 0.620).

Table 2 shows adolescents’ MVPA minutes and screen time associated with owning a specific dog breed, separately by gender.

Table 2.

Average daily minutes of MVPA and screen time of adolescents with and without family dogs

MVPA min/day
Mean (95% CI)		 p value Screen time min/day
Mean (95% CI)		 p value
BOYS No dog A. 128 (120, 136) 263 (251, 274)
Any dog B. 135 (125, 146) Vs. A, p = 0.307 258 (236, 281) Vs. A, p = 0.296
B1. 134 (120, 148) Vs. A, p = 0.503 250 (232, 269) Vs. A, p = 0.251
B2. 137 (121, 154)

Vs. A, p = 0.341

Vs. B1, p = 0.765

 266 (242, 290)

Vs. A, p = 0.826

Vs. B1, p = 0.311
Breed activity subgroups LAB 132 (106, 158) Vs. A, p = 0.765 258 (221, 295) Vs. A, p = 0.968
MAB 143 (126, 160) Vs. A, p = 0.116 237 (215, 260) Vs. A, p = 0.028*
HAB 129 (113, 145) Vs. A, p = 0.926 277 (252, 302) Vs. A, p = 0.295
GIRLS No dog A. 95 (87, 103) 211 (201, 221)
Any dog B. 108 (98, 118) Vs. A, p = 0.041* 193 (177, 210) Vs. A, p = 0.003**
B1. 99 (84, 113) Vs. A, p = 0.682 189 (173, 206) Vs. A, p = 0.032*
B2. 116 (103, 129)

Vs. A, p = 0.008**

Vs. B1, p = 0.083

 195 (179, 212)

Vs. A, p = 0.118

Vs. B1, p = 0.627
Breed activity subgroups LAB 80 (58, 102) Vs. A, p = 0.186 203 (177, 229) Vs. A, p = 0.686
MAB 104 (91, 118) Vs. A, p = 0.217 194 (178, 210) Vs. A, p = 0.080
HAB 129 (113, 146) Vs. A, p < 0.001** 184 (164, 203) Vs. A, p = 0.014*
Open in a new tab

(A) No dog; (B) Family dog; B1. Not primary walkers; B2. Primary walkers; All models for MVPA control for adolescent age, BMI and sum of skinfolds (ANCOVA) 

HAB Highly active dog breeds, LAB Low active dog breeds, MAB Moderately active dog breeds, MVPA Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Only one significant difference was observed in boys. Adolescent boys who owned moderately active dog breeds spent significantly less screen time than boys who did not own a dog (26 min/day less, 95% CI = 2.8–49.7). On the other hand, girls who lived in households with dogs (B) accumulated 13 min more of MVPA per day (95% CI = 0.5–25.3) and spent 18 min less in front of the screen (95% CI = 0.2–36.8) compared to girls who lived in households without dogs (A). In addition, girls who did not primarily walk their dog (B1) spent significantly less time in front of the screen (22 min/day, 95% CI = 1.2–39.5), whereas girls who primarily walked their dog (B2) were significantly more moderate-to-vigorously active than girls who did not own a family dog (A; 21 min/day, 95% CI = 2.2–39.1). Finally, girls who owned highly active dog breeds (HAB) spent significantly more time being moderate-to-vigorously active (34 min/day, 95% CI = 14.9–51.6) and significantly less time in front of a screen (27 min/day, 95% CI = 5.6–50.4) than girls who lived in households without dogs (A).

Adolescents’ MVPA minutes and screen time in relation to owning a family dog and different active dog breeds during the week and on weekends, separated by gender, are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Comparison of MVPA and screen time of adolescents who live with and without family dogs. Legend: A No dog; B Family dog; B1. Not primary walkers; B2. Primary walkers; The sign * represents a difference between the specific group of participants (where the sign * is located) and the A group with p < 0.05. The sign ** represents a difference of p < 0.01; LAB = Low active dog breeds; MAB = Moderately active dog breeds; HAB = Highly active dog breeds

When weekdays and weekends were considered separately, differences in MVPA and screen time were analogous to the week as a whole, as shown in Fig. 1. Girls were more physically active overall on weekends compared to weekdays (MVPA: 119 vs. 90 min/day), but also sat in front of a screen more on average (screen time: 209 vs. 181 min/day). For example, girls who owned a dog (B), who primarily walked a dog (B2), and who had moderately (MAB) and highly active (HAB) dog breeds spent more time in MVPA on weekdays (93, 100, 93 and 106 min/day, respectively) than girls without a family dog (A; 82 min/day, 95% CI = 1.8–21.2, 3.7–32.8, 0.3–25.3, 7.7–36.7, respectively). On the other hand, girls who owned a family dog (B) spent 16 min per day less time in front of a screen than girls without a family dog (A; 201 min/day, 95% CI = 7.9–37.1), regardless of their status as primary walkers, especially girls who walked highly active dog breeds (HAB; 160 min/day, 95% CI = 14.9–51.6). On weekends, only girls who were primary walkers (B2; 132 min/day, 95% CI = 2.2–48.7), especially who walked highly active dog breeds (HAB; 153 min/day, 95% CI = 19.2–69.5), were more active than girls without a dog in the family (A; 109 min/day). In terms of screen time, girls who owned a dog (B) had significantly less screen time on weekends (202 min/day, 95% CI = 0.2–36.8) than girls who did not have a dog (A; 221 min/day). Similar to the week as a whole, the only significant difference on weekends among boys was screen time between boys who walked moderately active dog breeds (MAB) and had less screen time than those without a family dog (A; 235 vs. 279 min/day, 95% CI = 14.6–71.8).

Among boys, the prevalence of meeting PA recommendations was 69.7% in non-owners and 68.5% in dog owners overall. Across breed-activity groups, prevalences ranged from 66.7% in LAB and 71.1% in MAB to 74.9% in HAB. Results of logistic regression analysis predicting adherence to PA recommendations showed no significant differences in boys who did or did not own a dog, regardless of breed (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Adjusted* odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals from logistic regression model predicting meeting PA recommendations. Legend: *This model is adjusted for age. Reference values for all models are adolescents who do not own a family dog

Among girls, the prevalence of meeting PA recommendations was 51.4% in non-owners and 67.4% in dog owners overall. By breed activity level, prevalences ranged from 48.6% in LAB and 61.5% in MAB to 68.6% in HAB. As presented in Fig. 2, the logistic regression analysis showed that girls who had a family dog (B) were 39% more likely to meet PA recommendations than girls who did not have a dog in their family (A). In addition, girls who primarily walked a dog (B2) were 118% more likely to meet these recommendations. Finally, only girls who owned moderately active (MAB) and highly active (HAB) dog breeds were more likely to meet the PA recommendations, (by 60% and 69%, respectively).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between family dog ownership, PA, and screen time in adolescents, considering different active dog breeds. More specifically, we investigated how is the ownership of different active dog breeds associated with PA and screen time in adolescents. The main results showed that owning a family dog was generally associated with increased MVPA levels and decreased screen time in girls, but not in boys. In addition, this study demonstrated that ownership of highly active dog breeds was more strongly related to adolescent MVPA levels and screen time than low and moderately active dog breeds.

When comparing daily MVPA minutes and screen time of adolescents living in households with or without a dog, and when comparing different dog breeds, only one significant difference was found for boys. On the other hand, differences in terms of benefits of owning a dog were more pronounced in adolescent girls. These findings are consistent with some previous studies. Salmon et al. [32] found that owning a dog was associated with 29.3 additional MVPA minutes per day among younger girls but had no effect in boys or older girls. In our study, having a family dog correlated with 13 more minutes of MVPA per day for girls. In addition, girls who primarily walked their dog had 21 min/day and girls who owned highly active dog breeds accumulated 34 more minutes of MVPA per day. Christian et al. [23] reported that girls who owned a dog were more likely to reach the recommended level of PA and accumulate more minutes of PA than non-dog owners. However, interestingly, boys walked significantly more minutes per week and were more likely to walk in their neighborhoods. The authors attempted to explain this by suggesting that boys may be more independently mobile and allowed to walk their dog alone, which would have a greater impact on their overall walking levels. Girls may be more active playing with their dog, which would make a greater contribution to their overall PA level. Another Australian study reported that for girls, but not boys (mean age 13 years), participation in dog walking was associated with a neighborhood perceived to be good for PA and concern for the safety of local streets [60]. All in all, the reasons for this apparent gender difference remain to be elucidated. When these results were considered separately for weekdays and weekends, the differences were generally analogous.

Compared to a study of Christian et al. [23] in which children of both sexes who had a family dog were 49% more likely to reach recommended PA levels than children who did not have a family dog, our study showed that simply living in a household with a dog increased the likelihood of reaching PA recommendations only in girls (by 39%). However, the real benefit of having a family dog is shown by the fact that the odds increased by 118% for girls who primarily walked the dog. This can be explained by the results of another study by Christian et al. [61] in which dog walkers were more likely to play in the yard, play in the street, and walk in the neighborhood compared with non-dog walkers. The authors suggested that dog walking might be associated with a lower intensity of playful activity and thus a relatively low contribution to PA levels. In addition to these findings, our study demonstrates the importance of different active dog breeds for this association. Namely, owning a moderately active or highly active dog breed increased the likelihood of meeting PA recommendations in girls by 60% and 69%, respectively, regardless of whether they were primary or non-primary walkers, whereas owning a low active dog breed was not associated with an increased likelihood of meeting the recommended level of PA.

Although a few previous studies that investigated relationship between dog ownership and screen time in children found no associations [23, 50–52], the results of our study showed some differences between the groups of adolescents observed. As previously mentioned, the only significant difference between boys with and without dogs was in screen time, i.e. boys who owned moderately active dog breeds spent significantly less screen time than boys who did not own a dog (26 min/day less). In addition, girls who owned a dog spent 18 min less screen time than girls who did not own a dog. Somewhat unexpectedly, girls who did not primarily walk their dog spent significantly less time in front of the screen (22 min/day). Finally, girls who owned highly active dog breeds spent significantly less time in front of the screen (27 min/day) than girls who lived in households without a dog.

When looking at weekdays and weekends separately, the differences in screen time were similar to the week as a whole. On weekdays, girls who owned a dog spent 16 min less screen time per day than girls without a family dog, regardless of their status as primary dog walkers, especially girls who walked highly active dog breeds. On weekends, girls who owned a dog spent 19 min less in front of the screen than girls who did not have a dog. Similar to during the week as a whole, the only significant difference in weekend screen time among boys was between boys who walked moderately active dog breeds and had 44 min less screen time than boys without a dog.

Strengths and limitations

This is one of the few studies that have examined the relationship between family dog ownership, PA, and screen time in adolescents. The greatest strength of this study is the novelty of being the only study that has investigated and demonstrated the effects of owning different active dog breeds on PA and screen time in adolescents. However, regardless of the significance of the present findings, several limitations of the current study should be noted. First, this study was limited by its cross-sectional design and the lack of information on non-responders. In addition, this study relied on adolescents' reports of PA and sedentary behavior. There is a possibility that participants may have over-reported their PA and walking behaviors, which could have influenced the study results. In addition, because there is no validated questionnaire on dog ownership, there is a possibility that the type of dog is misreported. In addition, the age of the dog was not considered in the study, which may have biased the results to some extent.

Typically, children and adolescents are not primarily responsible for walking the dog, but they may actively play with the family dog, which contributes to their overall PA level. However, the specific behaviors of walking and actively playing with the family dog were not examined in this study and require further investigation. In addition, the small number of multi-dog households was categorized by the highest breed-activity level, which is unlikely to have affected the results. Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, it is not possible to establish a causal relationship between family dog ownership and PA. It is also worth mentioning that although SES did not differ across groups (p = 0.620) and was not included as a covariate, residual confounding by SES cannot be entirely excluded. The results suggest that contextual measures of children’s PA and dog-related behaviors are needed. In addition, the extent of activity with dogs in these contexts should be further investigated, such as the frequency, duration, and intensity of active play with dogs in different settings, rather than just whether the behavior occurs.

Conclusions

The present study showed that owning a family dog was generally associated with higher MVPA levels and lower screen time in girls, but not in boys. Girls who had a family dog were more likely to achieve the recommended levels of PA compared with non-dog owners. Results also indicated that ownership of highly active dog breeds had a stronger association with MVPA levels than ownership of low or moderately active dog breeds. These novel findings provide valuable information that could contribute to improving the lifestyle of adolescent girls, a vulnerable population with respect to physical inactivity.

Given that pet dogs are more common in households with adolescents, they may represent an opportunity to promote more active lifestyles in youth, particularly through walking and active play. Our study demonstrates that more active dog breeds are linked to greater PA levels in adolescents. However, we do not advise families to get a dog if they are unwilling or unable to provide proper care, or if their living situation is unsuitable. For those who do decide to acquire a dog, we strongly suggest that adolescents take responsibility for the dog. This will not only increase their daily PA, but also teach them to take responsibility for a living being, feeding it, taking it for walks, etc. These experiences can promote greater awareness and mindfulness, which will have a positive impact on their future personal and professional development.

Further studies on the nature and timing of activities with pet dogs and in different social and geographic settings are now needed. Future research should also include objective measures of children’s PA and walking, as well as specific measures of dog-based PA (e.g., dog walking, active play with a dog).

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1. (118.5KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We thank the patrons who supported this study: the Slovenian Federation of Sport Teacher Associations, the Section for School and High-school Medicine at the Slovenian Medical Association, the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Slovenia, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of Slovenia, the Olympic Committee of Slovenia. A special thank-you goes to Professor Emeritus Janko Strel, the former principal investigator of the ACDSi study, for his valuable legacy and knowledge transfer of the study’s infrastructure. The authors thank the volunteer investigators, students, researchers, school coordinators, principals, adolescents and parents involved in this ongoing, multidisciplinary study.

Abbreviations

PA

Physical activity

SHAPES

School Health Action, Planning and Evaluation System Physical Activity questionnaire

MVPA

Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

ACDSi

The Analysis of Children’s Development in Slovenia study

C

BARQ - The Canine Behavioral Assessment & Research Questionnaire

SES

Socioeconomic status

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

ANCOVA

Analysis of covariance

A

Adolescents without a family dog

B

Adolescents with a family dog

B1

Adolescents who are not primary walkers

B2

Adolescents who are primary walkers

LAB

Adolescents who own low active dog breeds

MAB

Adolescents who own moderately active dog breeds

HAB

Adolescents who own highly active dog breeds

BMI

Body mass index

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

Authors’ contributions

SD participated in the design of the study, contributed to data reduction/analysis and interpretation of results; VS participated in the design of the study, contributed to data collection and interpretation of results; GS, GJ participated in the design of the study, contributed to data collection and interpretation of results; MS contributed to data reduction/analysis and interpretation of results. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the order of the presentation of the authors.

Funding

Limited non-specific funding was provided by the Slovenian National Research Agency (P5-0142 Bio-psycho-social context of kinesiology). The study received valuable support from Slovenian Olympic Committee and Elan Inventa, a manufacturer and supplier of sports equipment.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

National Medical Ethics Committee approval was granted in June 2013 (ID 138/05/136). Note that the research has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Ding D. Surveillance of global physical activity: progress, evidence, and future directions. Lancet Glob Health [Internet]. 2018 Oct 1 [cited 2022 Jan 21];6(10):e1046–7. Available from: http://www.thelancet.com/article/S2214109X18303814/fulltext. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 2.Woessner MN, Tacey A, Levinger-Limor A, Parker AG, Levinger P, Levinger I. The evolution of technology and physical inactivity: the Good, the Bad, and the way forward. Front Public Health. 2021;9:672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Paffenbarger RS Jr, Hyde R, Wing AL, Hsieh C. cheng. Physical activity, all-cause mortality, and longevity of college alumni. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(10):605–13. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 4.Blair SN, Goodyear NN, Gibbons LW, Cooper KH. Physical fitness and incidence of hypertension in healthy normotensive men and women. JAMA. 1984;252(4):487–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leon AS, Connett J, Jacobs DR, Rauramaa R. Leisure-time physical activity levels and risk of coronary heart disease and death: the multiple risk factor intervention trial. JAMA. 1987;258(17):2388–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.O’Donovan G, Blazevich AJ, Boreham C, Cooper AR, Crank H, Ekelund U, et al. The ABC of physical activity for health: a consensus statement from the British association of sport and exercise sciences. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(6):573–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sember V, Jurak G, Kovač M, Đurić S, Starc G. Decline of physical activity in early adolescence: a 3-year cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0229305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sisson SB, Katzmarzyk PT. International prevalence of physical activity in youth and adults. Obes Rev. 2008;9(6):606–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Riddoch CJ, Andersen LB, Wedderkopp N, Harro M, Klasson-Heggebø L, Sardinha LB, et al. Physical activity levels and patterns of 9-and 15-yr-old European children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(1):86–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ward DS, Saunders RP, Pate RR. Physical activity interventions in children and adolescents. Pediatric Exercise Science. 2007;19:493-4.
  • 11.Belton S, O’Brien W, Meegan S, Woods C, Issartel J. Youth-physical activity towards health: evidence and background to the development of the Y-PATH physical activity intervention for adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Neil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2021; 9(9): CD007651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 13.Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Burke V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: a critical review of the literature. Health Place. 2007;13(1):261–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Christian HE, Westgarth C, Bauman A, Richards EA, Rhodes RE, Evenson KR, et al. Dog ownership and physical activity: a review of the evidence. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10(5):750–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Christian H, Bauman A, Epping JN, Levine GN, McCormack G, Rhodes RE, et al. Encouraging dog walking for health promotion and disease prevention. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2018;12(3):233–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Westgarth C, Boddy LM, Stratton G, German AJ, Gaskell RM, Coyne KP, et al. A cross-sectional study of frequency and factors associated with dog walking in 9–10 year old children in Liverpool, UK. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dall PM, Ellis SLH, Ellis BM, Grant PM, Colyer A, Gee NR, et al. The influence of dog ownership on objective measures of free-living physical activity and sedentary behaviour in community-dwelling older adults: a longitudinal case-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu YT, Luben R, Jones A. Dog ownership supports the maintenance of physical activity during poor weather in older English adults: cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017;71(9):905–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Westgarth C, Christley RM, Jewell C, German AJ, Boddy LM, Christian HE. Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: an investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cutt H, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Encouraging physical activity through dog walking: why don’t some owners walk with their dog? Prev Med (Baltim). 2008;46(2):120–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Levine GN, Allen K, Braun LT, Christian HE, Friedmann E, Taubert KA, et al. Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(23):2353–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Timperio A, Salmon J, Chu B, Andrianopoulos N. Is dog ownership or dog walking associated with weight status in children and their parents? Health Promot J Austr. 2008;19(1):60–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Christian H, Trapp G, Lauritsen C, Wright K, Giles-Corti B. Understanding the relationship between dog ownership and children’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Pediatr Obes. 2012;8(5):392–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sirard JR, Patnode CD, Hearst MO, Laska MN. Dog ownership and adolescent physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(3):334–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Engelberg JK, Carlson JA, Conway TL, Cain KL, Saelens BE, Glanz K, et al. Dog walking among adolescents: correlates and contribution to physical activity. Prev Med (Baltim). 2016;82:65–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Veitch J, Christian H, Carver A, Salmon J. Physical activity benefits from taking your dog to the park. Landsc Urban Plann. 2019;185:173–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Martin KE, Wood L, Christian H, Trapp GSA. Not just a walking the dog: dog walking and pet play and their association with recommended physical activity among adolescents. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(6):353–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Christian H, Westgarth C, Della Vedova D. Understanding the relationship between dog ownership and children’s physical activity and sedentary behavior. In: Brewer H, Jalongo MR, editors.Physical activity and health promotion in the early years: Effective Strategies for Early Childhood Educators. Cham (CH): Springer International Publishing. 2018;113–30.
  • 29.Roberts JD, Rodkey L, Grisham C, Ray R. The influence of family dog ownership and parental perceived built environment measures on children’s physical activity within the Washington, DC area. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gadomski AM, Scribani MB, Krupa N, Jenkins P. Pet dogs and child physical activity: the role of child–dog attachment. Pediatr Obes. 2017;12(5):e37-40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Owen CG, Nightingale CM, Rudnicka AR, Ekelund U, McMinn AM, van Sluijs EMF, et al. Family dog ownership and levels of physical activity in childhood: findings from the child heart and health study in England. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(9):1669–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Salmon J, Timperio A, Chu B, Veitch J. Dog ownership, dog walking, and children’s and parents’ physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81(3):264–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Endo K, Yamasaki S, Ando S, Kikusui T, Mogi K, Nagasawa M, et al. Dog and cat ownership predicts adolescents’ mental well-being: a population-based longitudinal study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mathers M, Canterford L, Olds T, Waters E, Wake M. Pet ownership and adolescent health: cross-sectional population study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2010;46(12):729–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mueller MK, Richer AM, Callina KS, Charmaraman L. Companion animal relationships and adolescent loneliness during COVID-19. Animals. 2021;11(3):885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Purewal R, Christley R, Kordas K, Joinson C, Meints K, Gee N, et al. Companion animals and child/adolescent development: a systematic review of the evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(3):234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Westgarth C, Ness AR, Mattocks C, Christley RM. A birth cohort analysis to study dog walking in adolescence shows no relationship with objectively measured physical activity. Front Vet Sci. 2017;4:62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Westgarth C, Boddy LM, Stratton G, German AJ, Gaskell RM, Coyne KP, et al. The association between dog ownership or dog walking and fitness or weight status in childhood. Pediatr Obes. 2017;12(6):e51-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Carlisle GK. Pet dog ownership decisions for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. J Pediatr Nurs. 2014;29(2):114–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bauman AE, Russell SJ, Furber SE, Dobson AJ. The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health. Med J Aust. 2001;175(11–12):632–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schofield G, Mummery K, Steele R. Dog ownership and human health-related physical activity: an epidemiological study. Health Promot J Austr. 2005;16(1):15–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ahlstr\om \Oystein, Redman P, Speakman J. Energy expenditure and water turnover in hunting dogs in winter conditions. Br J Nutr. 2011;106(S1):S158-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gerth N, Ruo\ss C, Dobenecker B, Reese S, Starck JM. Using heart rate to predict energy expenditure in large domestic dogs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2015;100(3):464–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Phillips SP, Kutzner-Mulligan J, Davis M. Energy intake and expenditure of improvised explosive device detection dogs. Comparative Exercise Physiology. 2015;11(4):249–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dobenecker B, Endres V, Kienzle E. Energy requirements of puppies of two different breeds for ideal growth from weaning to 28 weeks of age. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2011;97(1):190–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Loftus JP, Yazwinski M, Milizio JG, Wakshlag JJ. Energy requirements for racing endurance sled dogs. J Nutr Sci. 2014. 10.1017/jns.2014.31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bryce CM, Williams TM. Comparative locomotor costs of domestic dogs reveal energetic economy of wolf-like breeds. J Exp Biol. 2016; 220(2): 312-21. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 48.Bermingham EN, Thomas DG, Cave NJ, Morris PJ, Butterwick RF, German AJ, et al. Energy requirements of adult} dogs: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Finke MD. Evaluation of the energy requirementsof adult kennel dogs. J Nutr. 1991;121:S22–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Christian H, Wenden EJ, Ng M, Maitland C. Association between preschooler movement behaviours, family dog ownership, dog play and dog walking: findings from the PLAYCE study. Prev Med Rep. 2022;26:101753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Moore SA, Faulkner G, Rhodes RE, Brussoni M, Chulak-Bozzer T, Ferguson LJ, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 virus outbreak on movement and play behaviours of Canadian children and youth: a national survey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gadomski AM, Scribani MB, Krupa N, Jenkins P, Nagykaldi Z, Olson AL.Pet dogs and children’s health: opportunities for chronic disease prevention? Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12: E205 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 53.Jurak G, Kovač M, Starc G. The ACDSi 2013–The analysis of children’s development in Slovenia 2013: study protocol. Anthropol Notebooks. 2013;19(3):123–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Starc G, Kovač M, Strel J, Bučar Pajek M, Golja P, Robič T, et al. The ACDSi 2014-a decennial study on adolescents’ somatic, motor, psychosocial development and healthy lifestyle: study protocol. Anthropol Notebooks. 2015;21(3):107–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH. Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ. 2000;320(7244):1240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Slaughter MH, Lohman TG, Boileau R, Horswill Ca, Stillman RJ, Van Loan MD et al. Skinfold equations for Estimation of body fatness in children and youth. Hum Biol. 1988; 60(5): 709–23. [PubMed]
  • 57.Leatherdale ST, Manske S, Wong SL, Cameron R. Integrating research, policy, and practice in school-based physical activity prevention programming: the school health Action, Planning, and evaluation system (SHAPES) physical activity module. Health Promot Pract. 2009;10(2):254–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wong SL, Leatherdale ST, Manske SR. Reliability and validity of a school-based physical activity questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1593–600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Serpell JA, Duffy DL. Dog breeds and their behavior. In Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior: The Scientific Study of Canis familiaris. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014;31–57.
  • 60.Carver A, Salmon J, Campbell K, Baur L, Garnett S, Crawford D. How do perceptions of local neighborhood relate to adolescents’ walking and cycling? Am J Health Promotion. 2005;20(2):139–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Christian H, Trapp G, Villanueva K, Zubrick SR, Koekemoer R, Giles-Corti B. Dog walking is associated with more outdoor play and independent mobility for children. Prev Med (Baltim). 2014;67:259–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1. (118.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from BMC Public Health are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES