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 | — |