Skip to main content
PMC home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2022 Aug 26;41(12):2609–2623. doi: 10.1177/07334648221116633

Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review

Suellen Costa 1,✉, Liliana Sousa 2, Helena Luz 3, Miguel Padeiro 4
PMCID: PMC9669735  PMID: 36029015

Abstract

Dogs are part of many people’s lives and are involved in interventions to improve the well-being of older adults in institutional settings. However, the literature on the impact of pet dogs on community-dwelling older adults is still relatively limited. This study mapped the impact of having a companion dog on the daily mobility and social interactions of community-dwelling older adults using a scoping review. Electronic databases were searched, and studies written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish that were published in a peer-reviewed journal were identified. After a careful review, 26 eligible studies were identified, and relevant findings were extracted. The main findings indicated that having a dog may promote or hinder daily mobility and social interactions and that having a dog is about routines and sharing affection. More research is needed to clarify what makes having a companion dog key to promoting active and healthy aging.

Keywords: companion dogs, older adults, social interaction, daily mobility

What this paper adds

  • Companion dogs are part of families and households and are relevant to individuals of all ages. Research has mainly focused on the role of therapy and service dogs in people’s lives. Dogs have been involved for therapeutic purposes in interventions targeting older adults with depression and dementia, have shown effectiveness mostly in institutional settings.

Applications of study findings

  • Many older community-dwelling adults are dog owners, and it is important to better understand how companion dogs contribute to healthy and active aging. In this scoping review, the findings suggest that dogs contribute in terms of companionship and affection. However, in terms of daily mobility and social interactions, we observed mixed impacts that depend on the dog, owner, and environmental features.

  • Older adult dog owners may spend more time at home to ensure that their dogs are not alone, thus limiting daily mobility and social interaction. Dog characteristics (size, age, and behavior) have been scarcely explored and may mediate dog–owner daily mobility and social interactions. Outdoor spaces, including dog-friendly spaces, increase the frequency and quality of activities outside the home, including with the companion dog.

Introduction

For centuries, dogs have been part of human society as companion animals (Benz-Schwarzburg et al., 2020; Bergström et al., 2020). Dog companionship is prevalent worldwide. In Europe, dogs are the second most popular pets (cats are first), with about 24% of households owning at least one dog (The European Pet Food Industry, 2021), and in the US, about 54% of households own dogs (American Pet Products Association, 2019). Overall, pet dogs are a source of companionship that increases the health and well-being of their owners. The role played by pets in human aging is being increasingly explored (Bowen et al., 2021; Enders-Slegers & Hediger, 2019; Gee & Mueller, 2019; McCune et al., 2014). Research suggests that the human–animal relationship is linked to better mental health, reinforced social interaction, and the processes of physical, cognitive, and emotional rehabilitation, helping to maintain autonomy (Baun & Johnson, 2010; McCune & Promislow, 2021).

Active and healthy aging are paradigms boosted by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposal for a Decade on Healthy Ageing 2020–2030, in convergence with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG 3), assuming healthy aging as a continuous process of optimizing functional ability that enables well-being in older age. Functional ability is determined by an individual’s physical and mental capacities in interaction with the individual’s environment. In this approach, functional capacities include the ability to meet basic needs, learn, grow, make decisions, contribute to society, be mobile, and build and maintain relationships (World Health Organization, 2020). Different environments, including the home, community, and broader society, are crucial for healthy aging because they are considered enablers of meaningful engagement among older people (World Health Organization, 2020).

As people age, mobility and opportunities to socially interact and form relationships tend to diminish. A set of factors contribute to that decrease: (i) the retirement process, which signals a decreased need for dislocation and loss of daily contact with co-workers (Handley et al., 2021); (ii) the health problems that often come as people age (Metz, 2000); (iii) physical frailty, which can affect mobility and contribute to a reduction in the number of social interactions (Gardner, 2014; Metz, 2000); and/or (iv) the mourning the loss of relatives, especially spouses and close friends (Prohaska et al., 2020). The lack of daily social interaction and reduced mobility are associated with social isolation, loneliness, and greater functional dependence (Guerra et al., 2021; Prohaska et al., 2020). Daily social interactions have the potential to enhance the well-being of older adults and improve their physical and mental health. Opportunities to build and/or maintain social networks are found in everyday activities, including walking dogs, which also potentiate mobility (Dall et al., 2017; Negrini, 2015). For older adults, walking within their communities can be a safe and easy way to stay physically active (Schmidt et al., 2019). Thus, promoting mobility within cities (e.g., walkability) can empower older adults (van Hoof et al., 2018), as urban areas constitute an invaluable resource in older people’s everyday lives by performing inspirational, social, and restorative functions (Negrini, 2015). Some studies have emphasized that having a pet, particularly a dog pet, has many benefits for older people, stressing that maintaining mobility and fostering social interaction are key aspects of a healthy aging process (Giannouli et al., 2019; Kojima et al., 2020). Indeed, dog walking encompasses a social component, since it may be an opportunity to socialize and increase the sense of community. Social interactions benefits may be a key component for walking the dog, in particular for more isolated or lonely older adults and their family caregivers (Christian et al., 2018).

The literature has examined the role of dogs in therapeutic purposes, such as assisted therapy, showing their contributions to all age groups. Specifically, dogs stimulate mobility, interpersonal contact, and communication (Rodrigo-Claverol et al., 2020). Dogs have been involved for therapeutic purposes in interventions targeting older adults with depression and dementia, mostly in institutional settings (Jain et al., 2020). However, literature on the impact of having a pet dog on community-dwelling older adults is still relatively limited. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map the impact of having a companion dog on the daily mobility and social interactions of community-dwelling older adults (≥65 years old).

Research Design and Methods

This study adopted a scoping review approach following the stages developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and updated by Levac et al., 2010. Scoping reviews map relevant evidence and identify gaps in a topic that are useful for emerging research areas. Data are reported following the checklist of the PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2016). A protocol was developed using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (Peters et al., 2020) and adjusted by the platform registration guidelines (Canellas et al., 2021). The final version is available INPLASY202190111 (Costa et al., 2021).

Identifying the Research Question

The first author performed preliminary searches on aging and older adults, companion/pet dogs, daily mobility, and social interaction to refine the research question. Some full texts of selected articles were reviewed to understand how the terms have been used. Most studies reported on assistance or therapy dogs in institutional settings, which was not our focus but helped to clarify the terms. We identified the following research question: How does having a companion dog influence the daily mobility and social interactions of older adults (owners or guardians, aged ≥65 years old)?

Identifying Relevant Studies

Searching Electronic Databases

This scoping review used a three-step search strategy to identify published articles. First, we used selected English search terms after analyzing the most frequently used keywords in articles published on Scopus within our research theme, which were tested in the indexed keywords from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) that are relevant to this review. Second, the university librarian verified the search strategies to adapt the keywords and index terms to each database requirement. References were searched through the following multidisciplinary and health-related databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Academic Research Completed. Third, the reference lists of articles identified during the search were manually checked to identify potential papers for inclusion.

Searches were conducted in June 2021. The search strategy included search terms (Table 1) related to the population, context, and concept (PCC). The population comprised community-dwelling older adults, aged ≥65 years, who had at least one companion dog. Our primary intention was to retain urban-based studies only; however, many studies based on nationwide and/or cohort data do not specify the type of settings. Removing them would unnecessarily reduce the total number of studies selected. Therefore, we included studies with at least part of the sample located in an urban environment. Location in either developed or emerging countries was not considered as an inclusion or exclusion criterion. Although strong differences between them could challenge this review’s results, the inclusion of countries regardless of their economic level would provide the possibility of addressing potential differences in the effects of dog ownership across a variety of situations. Older people were defined as those aged 65+ (developed countries) or 60+ (in emerging countries) as outlined by the World Health Organization (2020); however, we included other ages in cases where the studies identified the participants as older people.

Table 1.

Search Terms and Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Search Terms
Population Concept Context
“older people” OR “older adult*” OR aging OR “old-age” OR age* OR ancient* OR elderl* OR senior* OR “later life” AND “dog* owner*” OR “dog tutor*” OR “companion dog*” OR “cane* familiar*” OR “domestic dog*” “daily mobility” OR walk* OR mobility AND social* OR “social interaction” OR “interpersonal relationship” community OR “community-dwelling”
Exclusion
 “service dog*” OR “guide dog*” “animal-assisted interventions” “therapeutic setting*” OR “therapeutic environment” OR “therapeutic residences” OR “residence for the older adult*” OR “residence for the elderl*”
Open in a new tab

Screening

The inclusion and exclusion criteria applied during the two screening stages (titles and abstracts, as well as full text) are shown in Table 1. First, the titles and abstracts were selected by two independent reviewers (first and second authors). Data from each relevant publication were imported into the reference management software (Mendeley 1.19.8). Second, the same program was used to delete duplicates. Third, the first author exported the titles and abstracts of the selected articles into a spreadsheet (Excel, 2016) to identify the studies to be excluded. The second author independently did the same. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the remaining authors. Fourth, the full texts of the selected articles were obtained and read by the first author. Any disagreement was addressed through discussions with another author.

Selecting Studies and Charting the Data

Eighty-six studies were initially identified for screening. Afterward, 26 remained (Figure 1). The main criterion for exclusion was not focusing on older adults; most of these studies included older adults in the samples, but the data analysis did not differ by age group. The following variables were extracted: first author, year of publication and country, objective(s), geographical context, methodology/design, sample, instruments and indicators, daily mobility, social interactions, dog-related variables, environmental variables, main findings, and other variables. The data were extracted into Microsoft Excel. Data analysis followed a descriptive form to map evidence according to the review question; the main findings were addressed through a narrative review (Peters et al., 2020). For that end, the rules to create categories based on the aforementioned characteristics were first established. The authors then discussed how to allocate the findings to the different categories, and characteristics were counted within each category. The findings were then described based on the categorization, and a synthesis regarding daily mobility and social interaction major findings was produced.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram for the scoping review process.

Results

Overview of Selected Studies

Table 2 offers a general overview of the included studies (years, geographic context, methods and design, and samples). The 26 included papers were published between 1993 and 2021, with a large publication gap between 1993 and 2006 (Table 2). Most of the papers (n = 15) were published from 2017 onwards. The geographical origins are as follows: 42.3% came from North American countries (US: 10; Canada: 1) and 38.5% came from European countries (UK: 4; Austria: 1; Bulgaria: 1; Czech Republic: 1, The Netherlands: 1; Spain: 1). Three other papers (11.5%) were from Japan (2) and China (1). The remaining one was from Australia.

Table 2.

General Data on Studies Selected.

Studies Geographic Context Methods/Design Sample
Arbillaga-Etxarri et al. (2017, Spain) Five cities of Catalunya QT. Cross-sectional; ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, multivariable regression COPD patients (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); N = 410; average age: 69; male: 85%
Carr et al. (2021, USA) Florida (no details) QT. Longitudinal; OLS regression models Community adults aged 60+; N = 466; average age: 69.4; male: 34%; dog owners: 39–42%
Chen et al. (2020, China) Urban; Guangzhou QL. Participatory observations; in-depth interviews Urban empty nesters; N = 12; average age: 66.7; male: 25%; dog owners: 100%
Curl et al. (2017, USA) USA (no details, nationwide survey) QT. Cross-sectional; OLS regression and binary logistic regression models Community-based adults aged 50+; N = 771; average age: 67.7; male: 48.8%; dog owners: 35%
Curl et al. (2020, USA) USA (no details, nationwide survey) QT. Cross-sectional; structural equation modeling (SEM) People aged 50+; N = 476; average age: 68.97; dog owners: 39%
Dall et al. (2017, The Netherlands) Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Cambridgeshire (no details) QT. Generalized linear mixed-effect model People aged 65+; N = 86; average age: 70; male: 34%, dog owners: 50%
Dzhambov (2017, Bulgaria) Plovdiv, urban area near green areas QT. Cross-sectional; correlations and mediation analysis Urban community-dwelling retired people aged 65+; N = 265; average age: 75.8; male: 46.4%; dog owners: 100%
Feng et al. (2014, UK) Tayside; all types of areas QT. Cross-sectional, chi-square, independent sample t-tests, and mixed linear models Community-dwelling people aged 65+; N = 547; average age: 79; male: 46%; dog owners: 9%
Friedmann et al. (2020, USA) Baltimore (no details) QT. Cross-sectional; ANOVA, linear regression Community-dwelling people aged 50+; N = 378; average age: 76.9; male: 43%; dog owners: 24%
Garcia et al. (2015, USA) USA (no details, nationwide survey) QT. Cross-sectional; logistic regression Postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79; N = 152,629; average age: 61.5; dog owners: 24%
Gretebeck et al. (2013, USA) USA (no details) QT. Cross-sectional; ANOVA, hierarchical multiple regressions Community-dwelling older adults aged 65+; N = 1091; average age = 74.5; male: 44%; dog owners: 15%
Harris et al. (2009, UK) Oxfordshire (no details) QT. Cross-sectional; linear regression models Community-dwelling older adults; N = 238; male: 52%; dog owners: 22%
Hui Gan et al. (2020, Australia) Not stated QL. Phenomenological; semi-structured interviews Community-dwelling older adult; N = 14; average age: 73.6; male: 43%; dog owners: 100%
Janevic et al. (2020, USA) USA (no details) QL. Focus groups; thematic analysis Community-dwelling older adults aged 70+; N = 25; male: 32%; dog owners: 72%
Koohsari et al. (2021, Japan) Predominantly rural, Minami-Izu QT. Cross-sectional; linear regression models Young, middle-aged and older adults; N (≥65) = 1722; male: 45%; dog owners: 12%
Mein and Grant (2018, UK) Urban, London QT. Cross-sectional; multivariable proportional odds regression People aged 59–79; N = 6575; average age: 65.1; dog owners: 11%
Mičkova (2019, Czech Republic) Czech Republic (no details) QT. Cross-sectional; Spearman rank correlation People aged 60+; N = 44; average age: 68; male: 41%; dog owners: 59%
Moniruzzaman et al. (2015, Canada) Urban and suburban; Metro Vancouver QT. Cross-sectional; multilevel linear regression Low-income older adults aged 65+; N = 145; male: 35%; dog owners: 10%
Rijken (2010, Netherlands) Nationwide QT. Cross-sectional; linear and logistic regression models People aged 65+; N = 1397; male: 40%; dog owners: 10%
Rogers et al. (1993, USA) Mobile home parks in Sacramento QT + QL. Walk (with and without dogs), interview, quantitative comparisons, and content analysis People aged 65+; N = 11; average age: 69; male: 27%; dog owners: 55%
Scheibeck et al. (2011, Austria) Larger communities of the Tyrol (no details) QL. Systematic literature research, ethnographic field People aged 70+; N = 23; male: 22%; dog owners: 100%
Shibata et al. (2012, Japan) Urban; Bunkyo, Fuchu, Oyama QT. Cross-sectional; multivariate logistic regression models Community-dwelling older adults aged 65–74; N = 1926; average age: 69.6; male: 51%; dog owners: 14%
Taniguchi et al. (2018, Japan) Urban; Ota City, Tokyo QT. Cross-sectional; mixed-effects logistic regression models Community-dwelling older adults aged 65+; N = 11,233; male: 48%; dog owners: 14% (past owners: 29%)
Thorpe Kreisle et al. (2006, USA) Memphis, TN, and Pittsburgh, PA (no details) QT. Cross-sectional (part of a cohort study); chi-square, t-tests, and logistic regression models Community-dwelling older adults aged 65+: N = 2533; male: 52%; dog owners: 24%
Thorpe Simonsick et al. (2006, USA) Memphis, TN, and Pittsburgh, PA (no details) QT. Cross-sectional and longitudinal; general linear models, and logistic regression models Community-dwelling older adults aged 65+; N = 2533; male: 52%; dog owners: 24%
Wu et al. (2017, UK) Norfolk County QT. Cross-sectional; multilevel first-order autoregressive models Adults aged 40–79 (73% aged 65+); N = 3123; male: 43%; dog owners: 18%
Open in a new tab

Studies conducted in urban settings account for 46% of the studies selected, while studies explicitly including urban and rural areas represent 12% (Feng et al., 2014; Koohsari et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2017). The remaining 42% do not provide details about the urban or rural environments, but presumably include both, as they are state-wide, nationwide studies, or conducted in counties or regions including both rural and urban areas.

The methods were mostly quantitative (n = 21), with four qualitative studies (Chen et al., 2020; Hui Gan et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020; Scheibeck et al., 2011) and one using mixed approaches (Rogers et al., 1993). Among the quantitative studies, most used a cross-sectional design (n = 19), and two longitudinal approaches were used (Carr et al., 2021; Dall et al., 2017). Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 152,629 participants: 44–152,629 participants in quantitative; 12–25 participants in qualitative. The study (Rogers et al., 1993), using both approaches, had 11 participants. The minimum age in most studies was 65 (n = 14), while two studies included participants aged ≥70 (Janevic et al., 2020; Scheibeck et al., 2011). One study did not indicate a lower limit (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017). In five studies, the age limit was 50 years; in three studies, it was 60 years. One study considered 49 years to be the lower limit (Wu et al., 2017); no distinction could be made between them the age groups in terms of results. The average age was above 70 in six studies and under that in nine studies. In four studies, the non-dog owners group was older than the dog owners group, with differences ranging between 1.3 and 6 years (Curl et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2015; Gretebeck et al., 2013; Mein & Grant, 2018). Two studies covered the adult population (≥18 years old), but both analyzed the sample of older people (≥65 years old). Women were predominant (above 51%) in the samples of 18 studies.

Objectives and Instruments

Objectives and instruments used to assess the outcomes are shown in Supplementary Table 1. Regarding the study’s objectives, 16 examined daily mobility, three focused on social interactions, and seven included both dimensions. Instruments widely varied. Most studies comprising daily mobility analyzed levels of physical activity and/or walking behavior. One study focused on mobility patterns beyond walking and included car- and public transit-related mobility (Moniruzzaman et al., 2015). Studies including social interaction examined the frequency of social contact and neighborhood engagement (Curl et al., 2020; Mein & Grant, 2018). In addition, five studies investigated mental well-being: two examined loneliness (Carr et al., 2021; Rijken & van Beek, 2011), three explored dimensions of mental well-being (Chen et al., 2020; Curl et al., 2020; Hui Gan et al., 2020), and one examined pain management (Janevic et al., 2020).

Explanatory Variables

The studies included a variety of potentially contributing factors (Supplementary Table 2). Nine studies included environmental variables as potential moderators of the relationship between dog-related variables and outcomes (Table 3). These included neighborhood deprivation (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017), neighborhood general perceptions (Dzhambov, 2017; Moniruzzaman et al., 2015), neighborhood greenness and/or the quality of public space for dog walking (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2020; Dzhambov, 2017; Feng et al., 2014), having a backyard (Scheibeck et al., 2011), weather conditions (Feng et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2017), or distinctions between study sites (Thorpe, Kreisle, et al., 2006; Thorpe, Simonsick, et al., 2006).

Table 3.

Main Findings.

Studies Daily Mobility Social Interaction Effect on Daily Mobility? Effect on Social Interaction?
Arbillaga-Etxarri et al. (2017, Spain) Dog walking was significantly associated with an increase in time in MVPA and in physical activity intensity. Neighborhood deprivation, surrounding greenery, and proximity to green or blue spaces were not associated with physical activity None Positive —
Carr et al. (2021, USA) None Walking a dog at least once a day offset increases in loneliness among older adults who experienced significant social consequences related to COVID-19 — Positive
Chen et al. (2020, China) Outdoor activities can satisfy the needs of companion dogs and increase exercise levels for urban empty nesters. Companion dogs share the same rituals and rhythms of owners, and they motivate each other to reach a state of self-discipline. Companion dogs motivate owners to overcome mental and physical challenges. For empty nesters, it is an opportunity to take care of others None Positive —
Curl et al. (2017 USA) Owning a dog indicated an average effect of 22 min of additional time walking and 2760 additional steps per day. Dog owners had significantly fewer sitting events. There were no differences between the groups in the total time spent sitting, number, or duration of sedentary events None Mixed —
Curl et al. (2020, USA) None Time spent dog walking was associated with the frequency of social interactions. Bond with a dog was associated with dog walking. There were no differences between dog owners and non-pet owners in terms of social contact — Mixed
Dall et al. (2017, The Netherlands) Better park quality was related to less dog walking time and to poorer perceived health; more visitors attracted increased complaints None Mixed —
Dzhambov (2017, Bulgaria) Dog walking was associated with lower BMI, fewer activities of daily living limitations, fewer doctors’ visits, and more frequent moderate and vigorous exercise. Dog ownership was not associated with better physical health or health behaviors None Mixed —
Feng et al. (2014, UK) Dog walkers reported more minutes/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and total physical activity than non-dog walkers and non-dog owners None Positive —
Friedmann et al. (2020, USA) Dog ownership predicted higher levels of daily energy expenditure. Dog owners who walked their dogs reported walking at about the same speed or slower than when they walked without the dog Negative effects of pet ownership occurred infrequently, and positive influences occurred frequently. Dogs were more likely (36.0%) than cats (12.0%) to facilitate social interaction and to cause owners to decline visits with family members Positive Mixed
Garcia et al. (2015, USA) Dog ownership was positively related to higher physical activity levels. Dog owners were 12% more active than non-dog owners None Positive
Gretebeck et al. (2013, USA) Dog owners walked quite a distance each day, and they were in general physically healthy None Positive —
Harris et al. (2009, UK) Dog owners were more likely than non-pet owners to have engaged in non-exercise-related walking; this did not differ from non-pet owners in walking for physical activity. The activity-related benefits of pet ownership were limited to dog owners who engaged in greater physical activity, particularly non-exercise-related walking None Mixed —
Hui Gan et al. (2020, Australia) Pets were a source of motivation to engage older adults in activities. Pets played an important role in enabling them to have something productive to look forward to, giving owners a sense of purpose and value Pet ownership meant engagement in pet-related activities resulting in increased socialization with friends and family, which provided a sense of belonging to the community. The pet was viewed as a “connector” Positive Positive
Janevic et al. (2020, USA) Pets provided motivation for physical activity and offered no choice. Pet ownership requires adherence to a routine. The potential negative effects of physical activity with pets include (fear of) injury due to a rambunctious dog or strain from a heavy pet Having pets increased social activity with people, helping to build or maintain relationships. However, pets may have a negative impact on social activity due to certain behaviors Mixed Mixed
Koohsari et al. (2021, Japan) None There were no differences in the means of social capital between the three groups (non-dog owners, dog owner non-walkers, and dog owner walkers). There was no link between dog walking and social cohesion — No effect
Mein and Grant (2018, UK) Mild exercise in terms of metabolic equivalents and moderate exercise were higher in pet owners than non-owners and in dog owners than owners of other types of pets. There were no differences in terms of vigorous exercise Pet owners were more positive about their neighborhood than non-owners Mixed Positive
Mičkova (2019, Czech Republic) There were differences in favor of dog owners in most of the monitored parameters, specifically higher total physical activity time (min/week), MET/min/week spent in walking, and spent calories/week None Positive —
Moniruzzaman et al. (2015, Canada) Dog owners/dog walkers reported a significantly higher walking, walking frequency, leisure and physical activity level, as well as total functional ability, than non-dog walkers or owners. Pet obligations may provide purposeful activities that motivate some older dog owners to walk None Positive —
Rijken (2010, Netherlands) Dog walkers were more likely to achieve 150 minutes of walking per week and had faster usual and rapid walking speeds. Three years later, dog walkers experienced similar declines in usual and rapid walking speed as non-dog owners, but maintained their initial mobility advantage None Positive —
Rogers et al. (1993, USA) Dog owners reported a pattern of walking twice a day, whereas non-owners’ reported a walk of only once a day Dog owners and non-owners had good social interaction. Dog owners reported more satisfaction with social, physical, and emotional states Positive Positive
Scheibeck et al. (2011, Austria) Activities associated independently with higher step counts included the number of long walks and dog walking. The strongest associations were with the number of long walks and dog walking None Positive —
Shibata et al. (2012, Japan) Older adults living with a dog were healthier and more active than the group of non-owners or the groups of cat or other pet type owners No associations between pet ownership and the frequency of social contacts or feelings of loneliness Positive No effect
Taniguchi et al. (2018, Japan) Physical activity showed a significant association with dog ownership Social function showed a significant association with dog ownership Positive Positive
Thorpe Kreisle et al. (2006, USA) Dog ownership was associated with reduced trip distance. The interaction between dog ownership and walking as a transportation mode had a positive association with trip distance. Dog owners assumed the responsibility to walk their dogs independent of the built environment None Mixed —
Thorpe Simonsick et al. (2006, USA) Total minutes of walking was not different between dog owners and non-dog owners. Owning a dog was associated with a higher likelihood of walking 150 min/week and a lower chance of being sedentary None Mixed —
Wu et al. (2017, UK) Regular dog walkers were more active on days with the poorest conditions than non-dog owners were on the days with the best conditions None Positive —
Open in a new tab

In 21 studies, dog ownership was included as an explanatory variable. In four qualitative studies, 100% of the participants had dogs. Pet bonding was a potential explanatory variable in three studies, and two included information about the dog, such as age or size.

Some additional variables were considered (Supplementary Table 1). First, having a dog does not necessarily mean walking the dog, since not all dog owners take their dogs for a walk (Curl et al., 2017). Many people have a fenced yard where the dog can practice physical activity, while others have physical limitations that prevent them from walking the dog. Second, higher levels of pet bonding seem to be associated with more time spent dog walking (Curl et al., 2017, 2020) and to a better perception of the neighborhood (Mein & Grant, 2018). Scheibeck et al. (2011) found that responsibility and attachment to the dog give owners a sense of purpose that comes from routine, with fixed times for meals and walks. Carr et al. (2021) showed that the attachment to the dog was a motivation to remain physically active to meet the animal’s needs. Third, age may moderate the relationship between dog ownership, mobility, and social interaction. Dog ownership tends to decrease with age (Curl et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2015; Gretebeck et al., 2013; Mein & Grant, 2018; Wu et al., 2017). Regarding social interactions, Koohsari et al. (2021) did not find significant associations between dog ownership and activities with neighbors, contrary to other age groups. Mein and Grant (2018) reported that age is not a moderator in the relationship between dog ownership and social activities, while Chen et al. (2020) found that having a dog increases mobility and social interaction according to age.

The quality of the outdoor residential environment is a contributing factor to daily mobility and social interaction. The quality and walkability of the built environment (perceived or objective) and the presence and/or number of green areas close to home (Chen et al., 2020) encourage people to enjoy public spaces and social contact. The existence of dog-friendly outdoor spaces (especially in contexts with strong regulations that ban dogs in certain places) allows for an increase in the frequency and quality of activities conducted outside the home (Chen et al., 2020). However, this is not always the case. Arbillaga-Etxarri et al. (2017) found that for older people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the characteristics of the built environment related to green or blue spaces around homes were not associated with physical activity levels. Dzhambov (2017) reported that better park quality can be related to less dog walking time by older adults due to more visitors being attracted and increasing the number of complaints regarding dog behavior (not behaving well on a leash) from other users (in particular, younger owners).

Synthesis of the Findings

Table 3 provides the main findings of the included studies.

Daily Mobility

A total of 23 studies addressed daily mobility as an outcome; 15 found a positive relationship arising from dog ownership (Table 3). No study found an exclusively negative relationship. These studies showed that dog ownership is associated with higher levels of physical activity, measured through the frequency of dog walking (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017; Friedmann et al., 2020; Gretebeck et al., 2013), the total time spent dog walking (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017; Gretebeck et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2009; Shibata et al., 2012; Thorpe, Simonsick, et al., 2006), distances walked even without a dog (Moniruzzaman et al., 2015), or the intensity of physical activity (Arbillaga-Etxarri et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2014; Friedmann et al., 2020; Gretebeck et al., 2013; Shibata et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2017). Other studies showed that dog ownership forces people to adopt a routine that is difficult to escape (Chen et al., 2020; Hui Gan et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020), representing an additional motivation to leave the house and walk, even in adverse weather conditions (Wu et al., 2017). This stimulation provides a sense of purpose (Hui Gan et al., 2020). A qualitative study (Janevic et al., 2020) showed that the relationship between dog ownership and health was generally positive but mentioned some negative aspects, such as “injury or fear of injury due to walking a rambunctious dog, or strain from picking up a heavy pet” (p. 1092). Six studies found mixed results (Curl et al., 2017; Dall et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2015; Mein & Grant, 2018; Moniruzzaman et al., 2015; Thorpe, Kreisle, et al., 2006). Garcia et al. (2015) found no difference between dog owners and non-dog owners in terms of the total minutes spent walking. Dall et al. (2017) showed no significant differences between dog owners and non-dog owners in terms of sedentary time. Curl et al. (2017) showed that dog ownership is not associated with better physical health or health behaviors. The absence of positive effects is related to the speed of walking and the distance covered, which are frequently lower in older adults with a dog compared to those who walk without a dog (Curl et al., 2017; Friedmann et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 1993), which means a lower tendency toward more vigorous physical activity.

Social Interaction

Ten studies addressed social interactions as an outcome, and eight found a positive relationship between dog ownership and social interactions (Table 3). Globally, having a dog encourages the involvement of older adults in social activities in the neighborhood, increases socialization with friends and family (Friedmann et al., 2020; Hui Gan et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020; Mein & Grant, 2018, increases social interaction in public spaces (Taniguchi et al., 2018), and is associated with better perceptions of the neighborhood (Mein & Grant, 2018). A study conducted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic showed that dog walking was associated with less increase in loneliness (Carr et al., 2021). Two studies pointed out that having a dog may have negative effects on social interactions (Friedmann et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020); they suggested that owners may decline visits with family members due to concerns regarding the well-being of the dog during their absence. Three studies showed mixed to no effects of having a dog (Koohsari et al., 2021; Rijken & van Beek, 2011). In addition, social contact may depend more on time spent dog walking than on having a dog (Curl et al., 2020).

Discussion

This scoping review was performed to map the impact of having a companion dog on the daily mobility and social interactions of community-dwelling older adults. Overall, the results showed that (i) having a dog may promote or hinder daily mobility and social interaction and (ii) having a dog is about routines and sharing affection. This scoping review allowed for the identification of gaps in research, particularly the overlooked role of dog characteristics and the local environment.

Having a Dog May Be Promoting or Hindering Daily Mobility and Social Interactions

Regarding daily mobility, the findings showed that having a dog did not correlate with walking the dog or engaging in some kind of physical activity with the dog. However, most studies did not distinguish dog owners who walk from those who do not walk their dogs. For these studies, the results tended to show gains in overall daily mobility and associated health conditions. Studies also showed that dog owners who walk the dog may be walking decreased distances and/or for less time since they are with the dog. Dog owners (even those who do not walk the dog) may spend more time at home to avoid leaving the dog alone.

Regarding social interaction, the studies pointed out that older dog owners had an increased opportunity for contact and social interaction with new people and neighbors, particularly when walking the dog. Establishing social and support networks for dog owners contribute to their satisfaction with life (Curl et al., 2020) and ability to overcome loneliness (Ikeuchi et al., 2021). Participation in neighborhood activities arising from dog ownership (Hui Gan et al., 2020; Mein & Grant, 2018; Taniguchi et al., 2018) can be seen as an opportunity for community participation and involvement that enriches the sense of community and strengthens the social bonds and social capital of older adults. These are key elements of healthy aging (Feng et al., 2014; Hui Gan et al., 2020; Koohsari et al., 2021) and reinforce that dogs can act as catalysts for social interactions (Christian et al., 2018). Some studies have reported that companion dogs reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness by acting as means of socio-emotional support for owners (not by facilitating interactions with other individuals). However, some have reported that dog owners may limit their interactions with relatives and friends to stay at home with the dog (Friedmann et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020). Others have reported no effect of dog ownership on the frequency of social contacts (Curl et al., 2020; Shibata et al., 2012), on feelings of loneliness (Shibata et al., 2012), or on social capital (Koohsari et al., 2021).

Having a Dog Is About Routines and Sharing Affection

Findings suggested the importance of routine and responsibilities with dogs (e.g., walking, care with food, and leisure) as practices and positive motivation to keep older adults engaged and participating in society (Curl et al., 2017; Hui Gan et al., 2020; Janevic et al., 2020). This is relevant for active and healthy aging, namely, to the maintenance of the functional abilities and health among older people (World Health Organization, 2020). Recent research (McCune & Promislow, 2021) has stressed the need to focus on the pet’s role in creating healthier and more engaged communities. Increased movement (Gretebeck et al., 2013; Taniguchi et al., 2018) associated with a companion dog can create a positive impact by reducing the limitations of daily life. Companion dogs are a key element in the sharing of affection. Dogs occupy a space of companionship and emotional support to the point of replacing the owner’s absence of social interactions (Ikeuchi et al., 2021). Dotson and Hyatt (2008) addressed the issue of anthropomorphizing that occurs among dog owners. Scheibeck et al. (2011) pointed out the relationship between owners and their deceased dogs, describing the rituals of mourning and tomb ornaments like those made for humans. Rogers et al. (1993) noted that on dog walks, owners communicate with dogs in the same way they communicate with children. When they meet other people, the subject is usually about the dog. These data strengthen the conceptions (Souza Cabral & Savalli, 2020) that the socio-emotional support that dogs provide to owners, especially in Western society, satisfies the human need for affection and strengthens the companionship and love acquired from having a dog.

Identified Gaps

The Overlooked Role of the Local Environment

Dzhambov (2017) considered environmental aspects to characterize the preferences and frequency of use of parks by older adult dog owners and found that reduced mobility due to age and generational difficulties might cause older adults to use less structured spaces and more isolated parks. Specifically, regarding accessibility to transport as an environmental aspect, Moniruzzaman et al. (2015) analyzed travel behavior among low-income older adults. The geographic context was shown to be an important factor in the perceptions of mobility. These contextual factors included the infrastructure, walkability, and accessibility levels of cities where older dog owners live. Assuming that mobility factors, the residences of individuals, the cities in which h they live, and the services provided were found to be transversally related to mobility, and they can act as enhancers or inhibitors. Further research could address the role of the local environment.

The Overlooked Role of Dog(s) Characteristics and Number

Most studies did not address variables related to dog characteristics. A few studies suggested that dog size, age, and behavior may influence the dog owner’s daily mobility and social interaction. For instance, an old dog may prefer to stay at home or go on short walks; an older person may find it difficult to manage a big dog, especially if the dog has more difficult behavior (hard to walk on a leash, aggressive, or too playful). Only three studies mentioned participants owning more than one dog (Dall et al., 2017; Friedmann et al., 2020; Hui Gan et al., 2020), and none of them provided information about a potential effect either on social interactions or on daily mobility. Recent surveys suggest that multiple pet’s ownership concerns more than one third of total households owning pets (Applebaum et al., 2021). Samples in the studies by Friedmann et al. (2020) and Dall et al. (2017) included 25 and 28% of multi-dog ownership respectively. Multiple dogs’ ownership may be associated to more intense or frequent activity due to increased needs, but increased constraints may reduce frequency of social contacts and increase difficulty in multiple dog walking and the risk of accidents. Both variables thus need to be investigated in future research.

Limitations

This review is not without some limitations. First, this review only included dogs as companion animals. The existence of other companion animals (in addition to the dog or as an exclusive pet) could modify the findings. It is likely that cat (or other animal) owners experience their local environment differently and that their degree of freedom in terms of daily mobility, outdoor time duration, and social interaction differs from that of dog owners. Our findings may not extend to other companion animals. Second, we focused on the impacts on daily mobility and social interaction and omitted other possible impacts, such as family interactions and relationships. Our focus was on older adults’ everyday lives in the community. However, it is possible that even family interactions, ties, and functions may be (positively or negatively) affected by dog ownership. In addition, we did not include studies that focused on more general health behaviors, such as the utilization of local and health services, a healthy diet, or even physical activity other than walking. Third, the inclusion of studies focusing on urban and rural areas without providing enough details, instead of limiting the geographical scope to exclusively urban settings, is another limitation. Such a limitation is an additional argument in favor of paying more attention to environmental variables in future research. Fourth, as in most scoping reviews, selection bias may have arisen from the restrictions imposed on the searches. Given that the selection criteria limited articles to those published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, the literature reviewed might not be inclusive, and studies conducted in other languages were missed. Nevertheless, this scoping review highlights the importance of companion dogs for community-dwelling older adults.

Conclusion

While research on older adults and companion dogs is still relatively limited, the topic has been receiving more attention in recent years. Having a companion dog provides community-dwelling older adults with companionship and a routine that motivates them and gives them a purpose. This is why better environments and more opportunities should enable them to enjoy the company of their dogs. However, companion dogs may either hinder or promote the daily mobility and social interactions of older adults. More research is needed to clarify what makes having a dog a key variable in promoting active and healthy aging.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review
Click here for additional data file. (121.5KB, pdf)

Supplemental Material for Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review by Suellen Costa, Liliana Sousa, Helena Luz, and Miguel Padeiro in Journal of Applied Gerontology

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The research was project approved under agreement number PTDC/GES-TRA/32121/2017. The work also received support from the Centre of Studies in Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), funded by national funds through FCT under the reference UIDB/04084/2020 and from the Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), funded by national funds through FCT, under the references UIDB/4255/2020 and UIDP/4255/2020.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iDs

Suellen Costa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4378-3378

Liliana Sousa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-7119

Helena Luz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1592-0953

References

  1. American Pet Products Association . (2019). APPA national pet owners survey 2021–2022. https://www.americanpetproducts.org/pubs_survey.asp [Google Scholar]
  2. Applebaum J. W., Ellison C., Struckmeyer L., Zsembik B. A., McDonald S. E. (2021). The impact of pets on everyday life for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 9(9), 652610. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.652610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbillaga-Etxarri A., Gimeno-Santos E., Barberan-Garcia A., Benet M., Borrell E., Dadvand P., Foraster M., Marín A., Monteagudo M., Rodriguez-Roisin R., Vall-Casas P., Vilaró J., Garcia-Aymerich J. (2017). Socio-environmental correlates of physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thorax, 72(9), 796–802. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arksey H., O’Malley L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19–32. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baun M. M., Johnson R. (2010). Human/animal interaction and successful aging. In Fine Aubrey H. (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy. Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-381453-1.10015-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Benz-Schwarzburg J., Monsó S., Huber L. (2020). How dogs perceive humans and how humans should treat their pet dogs: Linking cognition with ethics. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(2), 584037. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.584037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergström A., Frantz L., Schmidt R., Ersmark E., Lebrasseur O., Girdland-Flink L., Lin A. T., Storå J., Sjögren K.-G., Anthony D., Antipina E., Amiri S., Bar-Oz G., Bazaliiskii V. I., Bulatović J., Brown D., Carmagnini A., Davy T., Fedorov S., Skoglund P. (2020). Origins and genetic legacy of prehistoric dogs. Science, 370(6516), 557–564. 10.1126/science.aba9572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen J., Bulbena A., Fatjó J. (2021). The value of companion dogs as a source of social support for their owners: Findings from a pre-pandemic representative sample and a convenience sample obtained during the COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 622060. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.622060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Canellas J. V., Figueredo C. M., Ritto F. G., Fernandes G. V., Vettore M. V., Rodolico A. (2021). INPLASY international platform of registered systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. https://www.inplasy.com [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carr D., Friedmann E., Gee N. R., Gilchrist C., Sachs-Ericsson N., Koodaly L. (2021). Dog walking and the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on loneliness in older adults. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 11(7), 1852. 10.3390/ani11071852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen X., Zhu H., Yin D. (2020). Everyday life construction, outdoor activity and health practice among urban empty nesters and their companion dogs in Guangzhou, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 4091. 10.3390/ijerph17114091 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Christian H., Bauman A., Epping J. N., Levine G. N., McCormack G., Rhodes R. E., Richards E., Rock M., Westgarth C. (2018). Encouraging dog walking for health promotion and disease prevention. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 12(3), 233–243. 10.1177/1559827616643686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa S., Sousa L., Luz H., Padeiro M. (2021). Daily mobility and social interaction of older adult dog owners: A scoping review protocol. 10.37766/inplasy2021.9.0111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Curl A. L., Bibbo J., Johnson R. A. (2017). Dog walking, the human-animal bond and older adults’ physical health. Gerontologist, 57(5), 930–939. 10.1093/geront/gnw051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Curl A. L., Bibbo J., Johnson R. A. (2020). Neighborhood engagement, dogs, and life satisfaction in older adulthood. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 40(12), 1706–1714. 10.1177/0733464820953725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dall P. M., Ellis S. L. H., Ellis B. M., Grant P. M., Colyer A., Gee N. R., Granat M. H., Mills D. S. (2017). 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, 17(1), 496. 10.1186/s12889-017-4422-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dotson M. J., Hyatt E. M. (2008). Understanding dog – human companionship. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 457–466. 10.1016/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dzhambov A. M. (2017). Park quality and elderly citizens’ dog-walking practices. Society and Animals, 25(2), 119–143. 10.1163/15685306-12341438 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Enders-Slegers M. J., Hediger K. (2019). Pet ownership and human–animal interaction in an aging population: Rewards and challenges. Anthrozoos, 32(2), 255–265. 10.1080/08927936.2019.1569907 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Feng Z., Dibben C., Witham M. D., Donnan P. T., Vadiveloo T., Sniehotta F., Crombie I. K., McMurdo M. E. T. (2014). Dog ownership and physical activity in later life: A cross-sectional observational study. Preventive Medicine, 66, 101–106. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Friedmann E., Gee N. R., Simonsick E. M., Studenski S., Resnick B., Barr E., Kitner-Triolo M., Hackney A. (2020). Pet ownership patterns and successful aging outcomes in community dwelling older adults. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 293. 10.3389/fvets.2020.00293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Garcia D. O., Wertheim B. C., Manson J. E., Chlebowski R. T., Volpe S. L., Howard B. v, Stefanick M. L., Thomson C. A. (2015). Relationships between dog ownership and physical activity in postmenopausal women. Preventive Medicine, 70, 33–38. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gardner P. (2014). The role of social engagement and identity in community mobility among older adults aging in place. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36(15), 1249–1257. 10.3109/09638288.2013.837970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gee N. R., Mueller M. K. (2019). A systematic review of research on pet ownership and animal interactions among older adults. Anthrozoos, 32(2), 183–207. 10.1080/08927936.2019.1569903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Giannouli E., Fillekes M. P., Mellone S., Weibel R., Bock O., Zijlstra W. (2019). Predictors of real-life mobility in community-dwelling older adults: An exploration based on a comprehensive framework for analyzing mobility. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 16(1), 19. 10.1186/s11556-019-0225-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gretebeck K. A., Radius K., Black D. R., Gretebeck R. J., Ziemba R., Glickman L. T. (2013). Dog ownership, functional ability, and walking in community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(5), 646–655. 10.1123/jpah.10.5.646 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Guerra S., Sousa L., Carvalho R., Melo S., Ribeiro O. (2021). Understanding loneliness in older adults: Reports from experts by experience to reach digital solutions. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 22(12), 1–7. 10.1080/01634372.2021.2019866 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Handley T. E., Lewin T. J., Butterworth P., Kelly B. J. (2021). Employment and retirement impacts on health and wellbeing among a sample of rural Australians. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 888. 10.1186/s12889-021-10876-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Harris T. J., Owen C. G., Victor C. R., Adams R., Cook D. G. (2009). What factors are associated with physical activity in older people, assessed objectively by accelerometry? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(6), 442–450. 10.1136/bjsm.2008.048033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hui Gan G. Z., Hill A.-M., Yeung P., Keesing S., Netto J. A. (2020). Pet ownership and its influence on mental health in older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 24(10), 1605–1612. 10.1080/13607863.2019.1633620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ikeuchi T., Taniguchi Y., Abe T., Seino S., Shimada C., Kitamura A., Shinkai S. (2021). Association between experience of pet ownership and psychological health among socially isolated and non-isolated older adults. Animals, 11(3), 595. 10.3390/ani11030595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jain B., Syed S., Hafford‐Letchfield T., O’Farrell‐Pearce S. (2020). Dog‐assisted interventions and outcomes for older adults in residential long‐term care facilities: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 15(3), e12320. 10.1111/opn.12320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Janevic M. R., Shute V., Connell C. M., Piette J. D., Goesling J., Fynke J. (2020). The role of pets in supporting cognitive-behavioral chronic pain self-management: Perspectives of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 39(10), 1088–1096. 10.1177/0733464819856270 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kojima G., Aoyama R., Taniguchi Y. (2020). Associations between pet ownership and frailty: A systematic review. Geriatrics (Switzerland), 5(4), 1–9. 10.3390/geriatrics5040089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Koohsari M. J., Yasunaga A., Shibata A., Ishii K., Miyawaki R., Araki K., Nakaya T., Hanibuchi T., McCormack G. R., Oka K. (2021). Dog ownership, dog walking, and social capital. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 126. 10.1057/s41599-021-00804-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Levac D., Colquhoun H. O. K, O’Brien K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(69), 1–18. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McCune S., Kruger K. A., Griffin J. A., Esposito L., Freund L. S., Hurley K. J., Bures R. (2014). Evolution of research into the mutual benefits of human-animal interaction. Animal Frontiers, 4(3), 49–58. 10.2527/af.2014-0022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McCune S., Promislow D. (2021). Healthy, active aging for people and dogs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8(655191). 10.3389/fvets.2021.655191 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mein G., Grant R. (2018). A cross-sectional exploratory analysis between pet ownership, sleep, exercise, health and neighbourhood perceptions: The Whitehall II cohort study. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 1–10. 10.1186/s12877-018-0867-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Metz D. H. (2000). Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transport Policy, 7(2), 149–152. 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00004-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Moniruzzaman M., Chudyk A., Páez A., Winters M., Sims-Gould J., McKay H. (2015). Travel behavior of low income older adults and implementation of an accessibility calculator. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis: JTH, 2(2), 257–268. 10.1016/j.jth.2015.02.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Negrini C. (2015). Ageing in the city: Geographies of social interactions and everyday life. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.etho [Google Scholar]
  43. Peters M., Godfrey C., McInerney P., Munn Z., Trico A., Khalil H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews-JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. [Google Scholar]
  44. Prohaska T., Burholt V., Burns A., Golden J., Hawkley L., Lawlor B., Leavey G., Lubben J., O’Sullivan R., Perissinotto C., van Tilburg T., Tully M., Victor C., Fried L. (2020). Consensus statement: Loneliness in older adults, the 21st century social determinant of health? BMC Ophthalmology, 10(8), e034967. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rijken M., van Beek S. (2011). About cats and dogs aEuro broken vertical bar reconsidering the relationship between pet ownership and health related outcomes in community-dwelling elderly. Social Indicators Research, 102(3), 373–388. 10.1007/s11205-010-9690-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rodrigo-Claverol M., Malla-Clua B., Marquilles-Bonet C., Sol J., Jové-Naval J., Sole-Pujol M., Ortega-Bravo M. (2020). Animal-assisted therapy improves communication and mobility among institutionalized people with cognitive impairment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 1–14. 10.3390/ijerph17165899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rogers J., Hart L. A., Boltz R. P. (1993). The role of pet dogs in casual conversations of elderly adults. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3), 265–277. 10.1080/00224545.1993.9712145 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Scheibeck R., Pallauf M., Stellwag C., Seeberger B. (2011). Elderly people in many respects benefit from interaction with dogs. European Journal of Medical Research, 16(12), 557–563. 10.1186/2047-783x-16-12-557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmidt T., Kerr J., Schipperijn J. (2019). Associations between neighborhood open space features and walking and social interaction in older adults—a mixed methods study. Geriatrics, 4(3), 41. 10.3390/geriatrics4030041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shibata A., Oka K., Inoue S., Christian H., Kitabatake Y., Shimomitsu T. (2012). Physical activity of Japanese older adults who own and walk dogs. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 43(4), 429–433. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Souza Cabral F. G., Savalli C. (2020). Concerning the human-dog relationship. Psicologia USP, 31(2018), 1–9. 10.1590/0103-6564E190109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Taniguchi Y. Y., Seino S., Nishi M., Tomine Y., Tanaka I., Yokoyama Y., Amano H., Kitamura A., Shinkai S. (2018). Physical, social, and psychological characteristics of community-dwelling elderly Japanese dog and cat owners (vol 13, e0206399, 2018). PloS One, 14(2), e0229163. 10.1371/journal.pone.0229163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. The European Pet Food Industry . (2021). https://www.fediaf.org/images/FINAL_FEDIAF_AR_2021.pdf
  54. Thorpe R. J., Kreisle R. A., Glickman L. T., Simonsick E. M., Newman A. B., Kritchevsky S. (2006). Physical activity and pet ownership in year 3 of the Health ABC study. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 14(2), 154–168. 10.1123/japa.14.2.154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Thorpe R. J., Simonsick E. M., Brach J. S., Ayonayon H., Satterfield S., Harris T. B., Garcia M., Kritchevsky S. B., Health, Aging and Body Composition Study (2006). Dog ownership, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 54(9), 1419–1424. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00856.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Tricco A. C., Lillie E., Zarin W., O’Brien K., Colquhoun H., Kastner M., Levac D., Ng C., Sharpe J. P., Wilson K., Kenny M., Warren R., Wilson C., Stelfox H. T., Straus S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 1–10. 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. van Hoof J., Kazak J., Perek-Białas J., Peek S. (2018). The challenges of urban ageing: Making cities age-friendly in europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2473. 10.3390/ijerph15112473 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. World Health Organization . (2020). Decade of healthy ageing: Baseline report. WHO. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wu Y.-T., Luben R., Jones A. (2017). Dog ownership supports the maintenance of physical activity during poor weather in older English adults: Cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(9), 905–911. 10.1136/jech-2017-208987 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material - Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review
Click here for additional data file. (121.5KB, pdf)

Supplemental Material for Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review by Suellen Costa, Liliana Sousa, Helena Luz, and Miguel Padeiro in Journal of Applied Gerontology

Articles from Journal of Applied Gerontology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES