Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 12.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Prev Med. 2011 Mar;40(3):334–337. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.007

Dog Ownership and Adolescent Physical Activity

John R Sirard 1, Carrie D Patnode 1, Mary O Hearst 1, Melissa N Laska 1
PMCID: PMC3395162  NIHMSID: NIHMS266326  PMID: 21335266

Abstract

Background

Positive associations between dog ownership and adult health outcomes have been observed, but research involving youth is lacking.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship of family dog ownership to adolescent and parent physical activity, weight status, and metabolic risk factors.

Methods

Data were collected on dog ownership in 618 adolescent/parent pairs between 9/2006 and 6/2008 and analyzed in 2010. Adolescent physical activity was assessed by ActiGraph accelerometers. Trained staff measured blood pressure, height and weight, and percentage body fat was calculated by impedance. A subsample of adolescents (n=318) opted for a fasting blood draw used to derive a metabolic risk cluster score. Parents and adolescents provided consent and assent, respectively.

Results

Adolescents’ mean age was 14.6±1.8 years and 49% were male. White and higher SES adolescents were more likely to own a dog. In models adjusted for age, puberty, gender, race, total household members and SES, adolescent physical activity (mean counts min−1 day−1) remained significantly associated with dog ownership (β=24.3, SE=12.4, p=0.05) while the association with minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity day−1 became nonsignificant (β=2.2, SE=1.2, p=0.07). No significant results were observed for other adolescent characteristics.

Conclusions

Dog ownership was associated with more physical activity among adolescents. Further research using longitudinal data will help clarify the role that dog ownership may have on adolescent physical activity.

INTRODUCTION

Physical inactivity is a major public health problem1–3 and may play a substantial role in the etiology of youth obesity and type II diabetes.4–6 Recently, dog ownership has been positively associated with health-related factors among middle-aged and older adults, including physical activity,7–12 weight,9 and mental health.13–16 However, there is little information about the associations between dog ownership and youth health behaviors and outcomes. The family dog may provide external motivation for physical activity similar to having a walking or workout partner—a common method used to increase exercise adherence. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of family dog ownership to adolescent physical activity, screen time and related health outcomes. It was hypothesized that dog ownership would be positively associated with physical activity and negatively associated with weight status, screen time and other health outcomes.

METHODS

Samples

Adolescent participants were enrolled in one of two cohort studies: (1) the Identifying Determinants of Eating and Activity Study (IDEA, 2006–2007) and (2) the Etiology of Childhood Obesity Study (ECHO, 2007–2008). Both studies were conducted within the metropolitan area of Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, and included identical measurement protocols. These samples were combined in order to provide a larger and more diverse sample. Both studies have been described previously.17–18

Measures

Data were collected during a 2-hour clinic visit with an optional supplemental study including a fasting blood draw. All study protocols were approved by the University of Minnesota IRB.

Independent variable

Dog ownership was self-reported by parents by asking “How many dogs are in your home?” Response options of “0”, 1”, “2”, and “3 or more” were recoded to “none” and “one or more”.

Dependent variables

The ActiGraph accelerometer, model 7164 (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL) was used to collect 7 days of physical activity data using standard right hip placement and 30-second epochs (data collection intervals).19,20 ActiGraph data were reduced using the ActiProcess software 21 which employs imputation based on the Expectation Maximization algorithm. Summary physical activity variables were calculated using the Freedson age-specific count cutoffs 22 distinguishing moderate- and vigorous-intensity based on age-adjusted METs.23,24 Mean accelerometer counts per minute were also calculated as a measure of total movement.

Adolescent screen time behavior was assessed via self-administered surveys using items adapted from previous studies to determine mean screen time hours on weekdays and weekends.25–27

Covariates

Adolescents reported their gender and age; parents reported the number of people living in the household, if their child qualified for free or reduced priced lunch (FRL, Y/N), and highest level of education among the adults living in the household (≥College degree, Y/N). Adolescents completed the self-report Pubertal Development Scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.77)28 to control for puberty’s confounding effects when examining associations with BMI and body fat.

Analysis

Analyses were conducted in 2010 using SAS v. 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Only one parent/adolescent dyad from each household was included in these analyses. Unadjusted analyses included t-tests to determine differences by dog ownership category and Spearman correlations to determine bivariate associations between dog ownership and dependent variables. Subsequent regression analyses were conducted using those variables with p<0.05 in correlational analyses. PROC GENMOD (General Estimating Equations) was used for linear regression, adjusting for covariates, the study sample (IDEA vs ECHO), and accounting for possible clustering by school. Interactions were tested to determine if the relationship between dog ownership and the dependent variables was modified by adolescent gender and age.

Results

After excluding dyads with missing data, the final sample was n=618. Adolescents who were white and/or not receiving FRL were more likely to be from dog-owning families (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). Mean daily minutes of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) was significantly greater for adolescents who owned a dog (p<0.05). See Table 1.

Table 1.

Participant health-related physiologic and behavioral measures by dog ownership (n=618); M (SD) or %

Full sample 0 dogs
(47.4%)		 1+ dogs
(52.6%)		 p-value
Gender, % male 49.0 45.4 52.3 0.09
Age 14.6 (1.8) 14.5 (1.8) 14.7 (1.8) 0.72
Race, % white 84.6 81.6 87.4 0.05
% eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch 11.5 15.4 8.0 0.003
Puberty (n=687) 2.9 (0.7) 2.9 (0.7) 2.9 (0.8) 0.65
Counts/minute/day 383.7 (160.3) 373.5 (163.3) 392.8 (157.3) 0.14
MVPA minutes/day 30.9 (16.9) 29.5 (15.8) 32.1 (17.8) 0.04
Sedentary minutes/day 570.5 (92.7) 573.3 (95.2) 566.1 (90.2) 0.22
Screen time, minutes/day 322.0 (225.9) 330.5 (234.7) 314.3 (217.7) 0.19
Open in a new tab

Table 2 shows both measures of physical activity (accelerometer counts per minute and MVPA) were positively correlated with dog ownership (p<0.05). Therefore, these variables were evaluated in an adjusted regression model.

Table 2.

Spearman correlations between dog ownership (0 vs 1+) and health-related physiologic and behavioral variables

n Spearman r p-value
Counts/minute/day 600 0.080 0.05
MVPA minutes/day 600 0.091 0.03
Sedentary minutes/day 600 –0.048 0.31
Screen time, minutes/day 684 –0.044 0.45
Open in a new tab

Mean daily accelerometer counts per minute remained significantly associated with dog ownership (B = 24.3, SE = 12.4, p = 0.05) after controlling for all potential confounders. The association between dog ownership and mean daily minutes of MVPA was no longer significant (B = 2.2, SE = 1.2, p = 0.07) after controlling for confounders. There were no significant (p>0.05) interactions.

DISCUSSION

A small but positive association was observed between dog ownership and adolescent total activity (mean daily ActiGraph counts per minute) that remained significant after controlling for a wide range of demographic confounders. Several previous studies observed similar positive associations between dog ownership and adult physical activity.11 Children and adolescents may not have the primary responsibility of walking the dog but may actively play with the family dog, thus contributing to their overall minutes engaging in physical activity. However, dog walking behavior and active play with the family dog were not assessed in this study and need to be studied further. Although small, the magnitude of these associations should be considered within an ecologic perspective where physical activity is affected by multiple factors at several levels of influence.

The cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow us to determine causality between dog ownership and activity. Therefore, families with more-active children may be more likely to get a dog as a pet, rather than dogs causing youth to be more active. Longitudinal data measuring physical activity and other health outcomes before and after dog acquisition in large, representative samples are needed to address this question. Several small longitudinal studies have indicated increases in adult walking and physical activity following dog acquisition,29–31 but there have been no comparable studies with youth.

In addition, this study did not assess factors that could potentially moderate the association between physical activity and dog ownership, such as the size and breed of the dog, the home and neighborhood environments, the role of specific family members in walking and/or actively playing with the dog, and the level of attachment to the dog. Furthermore, the relatively healthy, homogeneous sample may have limited the ability to see stronger associations that might be more apparent with a more diverse population.

CONCLUSION

A positive association was observed between family dog ownership and objectively measured adolescent physical activity. In contrast, dog ownership was not significantly associated with youth sedentary behavior. This study is among the first of its kind to examine such relationships among youth. Additional research is needed to further understand the associations between dog ownership and health.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating families and our funding sources: NCI’s Transdisciplinary Research in Energetics & Cancer Initiative (NCI Grant 1 U54 CA116849-01), Examining the Obesity Epidemic Through Youth, Family & Young Adults (PI: Robert Jeffery, PhD).

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

References

  • 1.CDC. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – U.S., 2007. Morb Mortal Weekly Rep, MMWR. 2008;57(SS-4):109.
  • 2.Pate RR, Wang CY, Dowda M, Farrell SW, O'Neill JR. Cardiorespiratory Fitness Levels Among U.S. Youth 12 to 19 Years of Age: Findings From the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(10):1005–1012. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.160.10.1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJR, et al. Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-age Youth. J Pediatr. 2005;146(6):732–737. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.01.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.McGavock J, Sellers E, Dean H. Physical activity for the prevention and management of youth-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on cardiovascular complications. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2007;4(4):305–310. doi: 10.3132/dvdr.2007.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patrick K, Norman GJ, Calfas KJ, et al. Diet, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors as risk factors for overweight in adolescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(4):385–390. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.158.4.385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–975. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200005000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bauman AE, Russell SJ, Furber SE, Dobson AJ. The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health. Med J Australia. 2001;175:632–634. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2001.tb143757.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ham S, Epping J. Dog walking and physical activity in the U.S. Prevent Chronic Dis. 2006;3(2) http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/pdf/05_0106.pdf. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 9.Coleman KJ, Rosenberg DE, Conway TL, et al. Physical activity, weight status, and neighborhood characteristics of dog walkers. Prev Med. 2008;47(3):309–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Brown SG, Rhodes RE. Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time walking in Western Canadian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.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):261–272. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thorpe RJ, Jr., Simonsick EM, Brach JS, et al. Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:1419–1424. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00856.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Albert A, Bulcroft K. Pets, families, and the life course. J Marriage Fam. 1988;50:542–552. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Demello LR. The effect of the presence of a companion-animal on physiological changes following the termination of cognitive stressors. Psychol Health. 1999;14:859–868. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Garrity TF, Stallones L, Marx MB, Johnson TP. Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly. Anthrozoos. 1989;3:35–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Katcher AH. Are companion animals good for your health? Aging. 1982;331–332:2–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lytle LA. Examining the etiology of childhood obesity: The IDEA Study. Am J Comm Psychol. 2009;44(3–4):338–349. doi: 10.1007/s10464-009-9269-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dengel DR, Hearst MO, Harmon JH, Sirard J, Heitzler CD, Lytle LA. Association of the home environment with cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers in youth. Preventive Medicine. 2010;51:259–261. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.07.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Louie L, Eston RG, Rowlands AV, et al. Validity of heart rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for estimating the energy cost of activity in Hong Kong Chinese boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1999;11(3):229–239. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, Watson PD, Riner W, Burke JR. Validity of the Computer Science and Applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(4):629–633. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199804000-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Catellier DJ, Hannan PJ, Murray DM, et al. Imputation of missing data when measuring physical activity by accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 Suppl):S555–S562. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000185651.59486.4e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Freedson PS, Sirard J, Debold E, Pate RR, Dowda M, Trost SG, Sallis JF. Calibration of the computer science and applications, inc. (csa) accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(5):S45. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Harrell JS, McMurray RG, Baggett CD, Pennell ML, Pearce PF, Bangdiwala SI. Energy costs of physical activities in children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(2):329–336. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000153115.33762.3f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sirard JR, Welk GJ, Heitzler CD, Lytle LA. Youth accelerometer cutoffs for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity: A sensitivity analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(5 Suppl):S314. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gortmaker SL, Cheung LW, Peterson KE, et al. Impact of a school-based interdisciplinary intervention on diet and physical activity among urban primary school children: eat well and keep moving. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153(9):975–983. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.153.9.975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Utter J, Neumark-Sztainer D, Jeffery R, Story M. Couch potatoes or French fries: Are sedentary behaviors associated with body mass index, physical activity, and dietary behaviors among adolescents? J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(10):1298–1305. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8223(03)01079-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Heitzler CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, Sirard JR, Barr-Anderson DJ, Story M. Physical activity and sedentary activity patterns among children and adolescents: A latent class analysis approach. J Phys Act Health. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.4.457. In Press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Petersen A, Crockett L, Richards M, Boxer A. A self-report measure of pubertal status: reliability, validity, and initial norms. J Youth Adolesc. 1988;17(2):117–133. doi: 10.1007/BF01537962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cutt H, Knuiman MW, Giles-Corti B. Does getting a dog increase recreational walking? Intl J Behavior Nutr Phys Act. 2008;Vol 5 doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schofield G, Mummery K, Steele R. Dog ownership and human health-related physical activity: An epidemiological study. Health Promo J Austr. 2005;16(1):15–19. doi: 10.1071/he05015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Serpell J. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behavior. J Royal Soc Med. 1991;84(12):717–720. doi: 10.1177/014107689108401208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES