Abstract
The human-animal bond can lead to a highly positive experience for both the guardian and the animal, nonetheless there is a need to be cognisant of the potential negative aspects this relationship may pose. This scoping review aimed to systematically identify the potential negative guardian aspects associated with pet guardianship and their causative factors, to facilitate a greater understanding and address and minimise these aspects. Through the online databases Scopus, ProQuest and PubMed, a systematic search was conducted, with 6871 sources identified, screened to 76 final sources for inclusion. Numerous potential negative aspects of pet guardianship were identified. The most documented were perceived cost, burden of care and negative aspects of caretaking, followed by grief, negative effects on guardian life satisfaction, and increases in guardian stress, anxiety and/or depression levels. Guardian concern and relinquishment, and disenfranchised guilt about dog parenting were also identified as negative aspects of guardianship. These negative aspects were brought about by various causative factors, such as problem behaviours, caring for a sick or aging pet, the burden of everyday care, and the death of a pet. Whilst integral to the lives of their guardians and providing many positive impacts, the pet guardian relationship is not without challenges. Through further research, particularly regarding the financial constraints that pets may pose for guardians, we can continue to facilitate an overall positive experience for both the guardian and their pet.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The phenomenon of keeping pets is extensive. In Australia, there are currently more pets than people, with an estimated 28 million pet animals, and approximately 69% of households owning a pet in 2021, with 47% owning a dog and 30% a cat [1]. In the United States, as many as 70% of households have at least one pet, 70 million of which are dogs, and over 45 million households have a cat [2]. Pet numbers have increased steadily since 1990, by 10% and 14% in Australia and the USA, respectively [2, 3].
The human-animal bond (HAB) and the effects of pets on their guardians has been a topic of research for decades. Several positive aspects of the HAB have emerged from numerous studies demonstrating the benefits of pets for different aspects of physical and mental health [4,5,6]. Seminal works in the field include Friedmann et al. [7], who observed one-year survival rates of patients after being discharged from a coronary care unit, where results showed significant increases in survival for pet guardians compared to those without a pet. Serpell [8] showed in a 10-month prospective study evidence that acquiring a pet may have positive effects on both human health and behaviour, including a reduction in minor health problems and an increase in physical exercise. More recently, social benefits have been identified from companion dog guardianship, through their ability to provide companionship and a social connection [9]. There is also evidence that dogs may play a pivotal role by providing emotional attachment and mutual caregiving for individuals who are at high risk for mental disorders, such as depression, social isolation, and suicide ideation [10, 11].
However, studies are not unanimous in their findings on pets’ positive effect on their guardian’s health, with other studies finding little to no benefits on mental and physical health [12,13,14]. The pet effect paradox states that there may be a disconnect in the benefits that guardians believe their pets provide, compared to what the empirical scientific evidence shows [15]. Objective measures, such as BMI, exercise levels, and anxiety/depression symptoms, may show little to no difference in pet guardians versus non-pet guardians, even when guardians are convinced that their pets are beneficial [16]. The range of mixed results in the field of human animal interactions may also be in part due to the wide variety of methodologies implemented across different studies [17]. This shortcoming is difficult to overcome, as the HAB involves two complex organisms interacting in dynamic ways. While the HAB is potentially beneficial, as with any relationship, there are likely to be some negative aspects. Pets pose the risk of inflicting bites, scratches and zoonoses, financial obligations, time constraints, and inherent responsibilities. Approximately 2% of the Australian population is bitten by a dog every year [18], and although there are only a relatively small proportion of zoonoses that can be acquired from companion animals [19], diseases such as toxoplasmosis, pasteurellosis and ringworm infections do still occur [20, 21]. Living with a pet gives rise to the possibility for the pet to display behaviours that the guardian finds undesirable, many of which are simply the animal displaying its natural behaviours [22]. These “problem behaviours” can be as innocuous as digging a hole in the backyard, or jumping up on the couch, to severe aggression towards other humans. Problem behaviours are often cited as one of the major potential negative aspects of pet guardianship and can ultimately lead to relinquishment of the animal [19, 23, 24]. In addition, due to the strength of the bond between pet and guardian, the death of a companion animal can often cause profound stress and even grief, similar to that of the death of family or a close friend [25].
If there is an overall positive impact on peoples’ health from pet guardianship, this may also have economic implications. In 2015, the annual health care savings of pet guardianship in the US was estimated to be over $11.7 billion, from a decrease in visits to the doctor for pet guardians [26]. Estimates from economists in the United Kingdom have also come to similar conclusions regarding health care benefits, with researchers estimating an annual saving of £2.45 billion to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom from pet guardianship due to a reduction in the number of hospital visits of guardians, and a decrease in the prevalence of obesity in dog guardians, which led to further savings [27]. It should be noted, however, that both the above studies were funded by the pet care industry, and there is other research that reports contrary findings. Multiple studies find no difference in the number of doctor visits for pet guardians [12, 28, 29] and a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 cross sectional studies found no evidence of a significant association between pet guardianship and obesity [30]. Pet guardianship can also be costly to the individual: in Australia, the average pet guardian spends $3,200 AUD per dog and $2,100 AUD per cat each year, primarily on food and veterinary services [31], and guardians may even elect to forgo their own medication or healthcare, in order to provide for a pet financially [32]. It is therefore worth recognising that any potential societal health care savings may be contradicted by the financial burden of pet care expenditures to the individual.
In general, the literature has focused on the positive benefits of pets, and although there is some information on the potential drawbacks to pet guardianship, to our knowledge, no previous studies have systematically reviewed the negative aspects of pet guardianship in the general population. Some systematic reviews do exist on limited areas, such as region specific canine zoonoses [33], dog bites and prevention strategies [34] or relinquishment [35]. Others may look at a specific population of humans or animals, such as older adults [36], the homeless [37] or trained service animals [38] but not the pet-guardian relationship as it relates to the general population. With this in mind, the aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to identify and synthesise the existing literature about the potential negative aspects associated with pet guardianship, as they relate to the guardian. Furthermore, this review aims to identify what aspects of guardianship were the causative factors of these identified negative effects on pet guardians.
2 Methodology
A scoping study was chosen for this review due to its suitability to map literature with multiple methodological approaches, and ability to address a broad research question, as described by Arksey and O’Malley [39]. We followed their methodological 5 stage framework. The inclusion criteria for source selection included: it was peer reviewed; written in English; published after 1995 and up to the search date of Nov. 15th, 2022; was a primary study and included research outcomes focused on the negative aspects of cat and/or dog guardianship as they relate to the guardian. Studies that included negative aspects of pet guardianship were not included unless there was a measure on how they affected the guardian. Studies were excluded if they focused on therapy or service animals or did not have any research pertaining to cats or dogs. We chose to limit our review to cats and dogs, as these are generally the most common animals kept as pets [31, 40, 41] and to avoid a complicated and extensive list of issues, relating only to other species less commonly kept as pets. No ethical approval was required for this review.
2.1 Search strategy
The searches for current literature were carried out on the online databases Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/), ProQuest (https://www.proquest.com) and PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The decision to use these databases was due to their relevance to anthrozoology and availability of significant literature [42].
The search strategy involved the use of two groups of keywords, and then a set of exclusion words to narrow down the search. The first keywords related to pets such as animal, cat, dog, canine, feline, pet. The second group of key words related to the negative aspects of pet guardianship, such as burden, concern, negative, challenge, stress (see Appendix 1 for full search strategy). This search was restricted to the title/abstract/keyword level, and then a large group of NOT terms were added to limit the initial returned results, which were irrelevant to our research question, such as “positron emission topography (pet) and “PET” plastics (Appendix 1).
2.2 Data extraction and synthesis
JZ developed the data extraction table, which was then reviewed by SH and TDN. Data extraction was completed through Covidence [43] and included author, date, title, journal, country, main aims/hypotheses, pet demographic, human participant demographic, methodology, negative aspect of guardianship addressed, method to assess negative aspect of guardianship, and relevant outcomes/key findings. All three authors reviewed the included sources before JZ extracted the data. A narrative synthesis approach was then taken, which was collaboratively completed by all authors.
3 Results
The search identified a total of 6871 studies, after which 1558 duplicates were removed. Of these 5086 were excluded as not relevant after screening against title and abstract. Two hundred and twenty-seven studies were assessed in full, with 76 being included as relevant for extraction (Fig. 1).
3.1 Study and guardian characteristics
In total, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria. Full extraction of data is included in Appendix 2. Of these, the majority were conducted in North America, and Europe (See Table 1). Most (n = 60) studies that stated guardian gender were female dominant (39/60). Seven samples included all females (including domestic violence victims), two focused solely on older adults, five focused on the homeless, and three on sick guardians. The participant sample size ranged from 1- 6096. Dogs were the most frequently studied species. Specific pet populations included pets with chronic diseases, pets with recognised problem behaviours, pets that had been recently euthanised, and multi-cat households. Multiple studies identified neutered vs non-neutered animals.
Fifty-eight of the studies were quantitative, the methods of which involved both cross sectional and longitudinal surveys, randomised controlled trials and a concurrent nested mixed methods approach. Twenty-two separate validated scales of negative pet impact on human guardians were used a total of 54 times across 37 separate studies, such as the Zarit Burden interview (adapted for pets), The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale, and The Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale (see Table 2). Twenty-eight non-validated scales of guardian impact were used across 21 separate studies (see Appendix 2). Twenty-three studies were qualitative, which utilised forms of structured interviews or focus groups.
4 Negative aspects of guardianship addressed
4.1 Guardian wellbeing and satisfaction
A negative aspect of pet guardianship that was identified in 14 studies was the effect of companion animals on the subjective wellbeing of the guardian (see Table 3). For dog guardians, the presence of problem behaviours led to a decrease in measurements of life satisfaction, wellbeing, and happiness [51, 79]. For cat guardians, problem behaviours such as house soiling, aggression, and hyperactivity increased guardian irritation and regret, and decreased the guardian’s satisfaction with their cat [80, 81]. Multiple studies also found caring for a chronic or terminally ill pet, or loss of a dog through euthanasia to significantly lower guardian quality of life [44,45,46,47, 49, 50, 82,83,84]. Everyday guardianship of a pet also had the potential to negatively affect subjective wellbeing through feeling one had failed to meet the needs of one’s pet [85].
4.2 Stress, anxiety, concern and depression
Stress was identified as a negative aspect of pet guardianship in seven studies, three of which looked at stress due to the death of a pet (see Table 3). Bereaved guardians had significantly higher stress levels when compared to non-grieving guardians, with multiple studies even finding small proportions of participants meeting the cut off scores for post-traumatic stress disorder following the death of a pet [45, 54, 55]. Caring for an ageing or terminally ill pet increased symptoms of depression and anxiety when compared to participants caring for healthy pets [44, 46, 52, 53]. Concern/worry was identified and measured as a negative aspect of guardianship in eight separate studies, with problem behaviours, being in an abusive relationship, and being an older adult or sick guardian all associated with increased guardian concern [86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93].
4.3 Perceived cost, burden of care and negative aspects of caretaking
Five studies measured the perceived cost of pet guardianship, using the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale developed by Dwyer et al. [94] (see Table 2). Separation and fear-related behavioural issues, lower confidence in one’s ability to train their dog, and poor guardian satisfaction, all were associated with significant increases in the perceived cost of pet guardianship [51, 58, 59]. Ten separate studies identified financial issues as a negative aspect of guardianship, particularly the cost of caring for a sick or aging pet [88, 93, 95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102]. When specifically investigating older adult guardians, two separate studies observed the financial costs surrounding pet care as a potential issue for older adult participants, particularly those due to veterinary fees [88, 102].
Burden of care was assessed in 18 studies, nine of which used the Zarit Burden of Care Interview—adapted to pets [46], to quantify the level of burden associated with caring for a sick or aging pet. All nine studies reported elevated levels of burden when caring for a sick pet or one whose illness was poorly managed, when compared to a control group [44, 46,47,48, 60,61,62,63,64]. Further negative aspects and sacrifices, such as time restrictions, getting up at night to let the dog outside and forgiving accidents in the house, were identified in caring for an aging or sick dog [52, 96]. One qualitative study also described negative consequences of having to walk their dog, such as bad weather, picking up faeces and bringing dirt and hair into the house [51].
Pet guardianship negatively affecting sleep was measured in four separate studies, through quantitative and qualitative measures. Having pets in the bedroom was found to decrease both sleep quality and quantity [67, 100, 103, 104].
4.4 Grief and bereavement
The death of a companion animal, and the level of grief felt by the guardian, was investigated in 16 studies, most commonly measured through the pet bereavement questionnaire (6/16), and of the Inventory of Complicated Grief (4/16) (see Table 2). The death of a pet resulted in the majority of guardians included in the studies experiencing crying, feelings of depression, loneliness and guilt, with Wrobel and Dye [25] finding over 35% of their 174 guardian participants reporting at least one grief symptom 6 months post-euthanasia. Complicated grief, a more severe form of grief characterized by lower health, energy, and social functioning [55], was also seen in a small percentage (3.8%, [13/343] & 3.4%, [8/236]) of participants in two separate studies [54, 55]. Homeless guardians had an increased vulnerability to loss, and pets limited their mobility and even potentially hinder their progression away from homelessness [105]. Some participants who lost a pet when homeless developed negative coping strategies [105].
A single study investigated the disenfranchised guilt associated with dog guardianship, through a cross-sectional survey instrument, modelled after the Guilt about Parenting Scale developed by Haslam et al. [106], where the word “child” was substituted with the word “dog”. The levels of guilt felt by guardians were observed to be at levels similar to those observed in human family studies [78] highlighting a potential negative aspect of pet guardianship.
The causative factors that lead to the identified negative impacts of guardianship are presented in Table 3. General challenges of pet guardianship are also listed, which may not be directly measured negative effects, but are still identified in the returned sources. This table relates to the second aim of this review: “to identify what aspects of guardianship were the causative factors of these identified negative effects on pet guardians.”
5 Discussion
This scoping review explores the documented negative aspects of pet guardianship. The perceived cost, burden of care and negative aspects of caretaking were the most commonly documented negative aspects. Grief and bereavement as well as stress, anxiety, concern, and depression were also severe impacts brought about from pet guardianship. Study populations included those from Europe, the Americas, Oceania, Asia and the Middle East, and encompassed the general population, plus sick guardians, domestic violence victims, older adults, and the homeless. The following sections discuss the causative factors of the HAB that are likely to contribute to negative guardian impacts.
5.1 The impacts of problem behaviours
Dog and cat problem behaviours were one of the leading causes of negative impacts to guardian life satisfaction and increased levels of concern [51, 66, 79,80,81, 86, 116]. Hedonic wellbeing, eudaimonic wellbeing, subjective happiness, and multiple guardian satisfaction scales were all quantitative measurements of negative impacts on pet guardians due to problem behaviours. Whilst not only having a negative impact on guardian quality of life and satisfaction, problem behaviours were also identified to increase the perceived cost of guardianship, the guardian’s level of perceived stress and levels of burnout [51, 57,58,59, 66, 101].
The negative impacts of problem behaviours identified in this scoping review may be further compounded by a potential financial impact. Guardians may try to manage behaviour through training and other professional advice and may also need to repair physical damage as a result of behaviours such as those related to separation anxiety [101, 118]. The cost of dealing with problem behaviours can be a major hurdle for guardians, and some do not have the financial resources or the time to treat their pet [101]. This can ultimately lead to the guardian relinquishing the animal [119], which in turn can cause feelings of guilt and negative wellbeing [120].
Behaviours that a guardian finds undesirable may be labelled a “problem” behaviour, even when these are natural cat or dog behaviours. A dog digging in the backyard, or a cat kneading the couch are both animals performing natural instinctive behaviours [121, 122]. A dog barking when a stranger encroaches upon their territory is a behaviour beneficial to survival of a wild dog, however when a pet dog left in the front yard for eight hours a day, consistently barks at pedestrians walking past, it can become a major nuisance. A pet exhibiting a problem behaviour(s) may impact the guardian in numerous ways, and some guardians may find identical behaviours more concerning than others. A dog that jumps when greeting, or pulls on the lead, may be a simple nuisance for a young couple, however it could be highly hazardous for an older adult guardian [123].
With such a variety of negative effects on the guardian, and often being cited as the leading cause of relinquishments [124,125,126], problem behaviours are an aspect of pet guardianship that need a multifaceted approach to prevent and/or treat. Guardian education should be a paramount step to preventing the development of problem behaviours. This begins prior to acquisition of a pet, with research into whether one has the ability to provide for the specific breed requirements of their desired dog/cat [127]. This can be observed in Bouma’s [58] study, where guardian’s confidence in their own ability to train and care for a dog, measured before the dog was acquired, was associated with fewer behavioural problems, greater satisfaction, and lower perceived costs of guardianship both six and 18 months later. This correlation is thought to be due to confident guardians believing they are better able to handle and care for a dog and are therefore more likely to invest more into the relationship, leading to greater success in achieving and maintaining a satisfactory dog-guardian relationship [58].
5.2 Caring for a sick or aging pet
The most common causative factor for an increase in burden of care, anxiety, and depression was when caring for a chronically ill or aging pet. Whilst there have been studies that show pets can help to improve symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression [10, 11] this scoping review identified certain aspects of pet guardianship that led to an increase in these negative psychological factors. Caring for a sick or elderly pet was also observed to increase guardian burden of care in 14 studies.
These findings highlight the complex nature of pet guardianship, particularly the emotional and psychological effects that may occur for the guardian. Common health issues that affect companion dogs and cats, such as arthritis, cancer, diabetes, and orthopaedic injuries [128] require medical care, special diets, and increased attention, all of which may be emotionally and financially taxing for the guardian. Not including studies which implemented the Zarit Burden of Care Interview (ZBI)—adapted to pets, which includes a single item on expenses, the financial cost of caring for a sick or aging pet was addressed in three [96, 98, 100] of the studies identified in this scoping review, and is a factor that can amplify the negative psychological aspects identified. The financial aspects of veterinary care can be an issue for both clients and practitioners [129, 130], and the costs of many treatments for dogs and cats may not be affordable, with studies showing as many as 40% of cat and dog guardians refrain from seeking veterinary care due to the financial cost [131]. Although the ongoing costs of pet guardianship are cited as the most common difficulty of pet guardianship in Australia [132], there is very little financial assistance available for those who require assistance [133].
As veterinarians are generally the first point of contact for many guardians with sick pets, often providing the initial diagnosis, it is critical clinicians are aware of the increased level of burden that caring for an ill or aging pet may have on the guardian, and the subsequent emotional distress this may lead to. Treatments which may seem simple to veterinarians, such as giving tablets or injections, have the ability to affect the level of burden felt by a guardian [48]. Support programs for guardians with aging or sick pets, may be an effective way to minimise the potential burden of care felt, and subsequent increase in depression and anxiety, thereby combating these negative aspects of guardianship. Interventions such as educational strategies that help to reduce guardian burden may also have a positive effect for veterinarians, who often feel the brunt of guardian frustration at their increased burden and stress [44].
5.3 The burden of everyday care
Some negative aspects of guardianship are simply a part of the human-animal bond, and do not require a specific causative factor, such as a problem behaviour or illness. The perceived costs of guardianship, and more specifically the financial impacts of pet guardianship are examples noted as an issue in multiple studies in this review.
The perceived cost of pet guardianship, measured through the Monash Dog Owners Relationship Scale [94], encompasses financial, physical and psychological costs. Research shows certain aspects of pet guardianship can increase perceived cost, such as behaviours like separation anxiety, aggression and disobedience, [51, 59]. The negative aspects of everyday care, like perceived cost, appear to be under researched, particularly when compared to the potential benefits of pet guardianship. In this scoping review only 8/76 of the identified studies were related to the burden of everyday care. A 2011 review which solely investigated the influence of dogs on guardian physical activity levels was able to include 35 studies [134], and a 2019 systematic review on the effect of the human animal bond on physical health and exercise, depression and anxiety, loneliness and social functioning, included 145 studies [135]. There is a need for more research into the burden of everyday care, as these are relevant for all guardians, at all stages of their pet’s life.
Some population demographics, e.g., older adults, sick guardians, low-income families, and the homeless, may experience some burdens of everyday care, namely financial effects, more acutely than others. Guardians may decide to make major sacrifices for their pets, for example when older adults choose to forgo their own medication or care, to provide for a pet [32], or the homeless turn down shelter that does not allow for their pets [112]. Human social determinants of health, specifically physical and economic factors, may lead to the amplification of some of the burden of everyday care [136]. Difference in cultures across the world may also amplify certain negative aspects of guardianship, such as Islamic traditions towards dogs [137], and although an inclusion criterion for this review was that studies be written in English, future reviews might make use of language translation tools, in order to negate this particular limitation.
A relatively new and additionally under researched area of pet guardianship seems to be the guilt felt as a pet guardian. Similar to the grief felt from the loss of a pet, this guilt is relatively unrecognised and unacknowledged. Kogan [78] highlights the fact that the guilt felt by dog guardians, in aspects such as being away from home, and not spending enough time with one’s dog, are at similar levels to those felt in human family studies. This “disenfranchised guilt” can lead to compensatory actions, including spending time with one’s dog at the expense of other family members, which can act to further decrease guardian wellbeing [78], amplifying the negative aspects of pet guardianship.
5.4 The death of a pet
Pet dogs and cats are seen by many as members of the family [138], and it is therefore only natural for the death of a pet to be an incredibly sad experience for the guardian, invoking strong grief responses, akin to that of a human death [139]. All 18 studies which investigated the loss of a pet dog or cat found guardians to experience negative emotions. Over a third of participants in Wrobel and Dye’s study [25] were still grieving at least 6 months after the death of a pet, with almost a quarter still grieving after a year. Grief is to be expected with the loss of a pet, and a negative aspect that all guardians expect to bear at some stage, for some however, the severity and length of grief felt from the loss of a pet can be significant. Unlike the death of a human, there are few rituals or mechanisms for pet guardians to express their grief and mourning. When coupled with family, friends, and society having potentially differing views of the human-animal bond, disenfranchised grief may occur, a grief that the mourner feels cannot be openly acknowledged [140]. The difficulty in expressing one’s grief over the death of a pet, can lead to continuing problems in coping with the loss. Complicated grief, a more severe form of grief characterized by significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression, as well as decreased social functioning health and energy [141], was observed in multiple studies identified in this scoping review, as was post-traumatic stress disorder. The negative aspects from the death of a pet can be compounded since guardians are often required to make the final decision in ending their pet’s life through euthanasia. This can lead to further negative feelings such as self-hatred, self-blame, and other harmful thoughts [142].
The findings of this scoping review highlight the importance of counsellors and psychologists fully comprehending the importance of the human-animal bond and the significant effect that the death of a pet may have on the guardian, particularly to those with strong levels of attachment to their dog or cat. Veterinarians also play an important role, as they are often the ones informing guardians of their pet’s death and performing the euthanasia. Whilst the loss of a pet is an unavoidable negative aspect of pet guardianship, if the overall experience of companion animal euthanasia is done appropriately, it can lead to decreased levels of grief and an experience the guardian finds satisfactory [74].
5.5 An overall positive experience
Numerous studies identified in the scoping review process included positive aspects of pet guardianship, that eclipsed the negative aspects felt by guardians. Westgarth’s [143] interviewees did observe some negative consequences of dog guardianship (such as dirt and hair in the house and cleaning up faeces), however they felt these were outweighed by the benefits gained from pet guardianship, and as such were labelled a tolerated inconvenience. Obradović’s case study cited multiple negative aspects of their older adult guardian’s dog, however in conclusion it was agreed that the benefits of the companion animal outweighed any potential negatives [88]. In Rauktis’s [117] exploratory study into food security of low-income pet guardians, analysis showed those with pets were actually more food secure, with pets assisting in creating a routine and motivation for food security. Britton’s [60] study identified positive aspects of caregiving, such as emotional satisfaction and fulfilling a sense of duty. Despite the profoundly negative experience of losing a pet whilst homeless, Howe and Easterbrook’s [105] participants still stated a core benefit of pet guardianship was that it helped them to cope with trauma. These examples highlight that even when guardians are affected by the negative impacts of guardianship, there are still positive aspects, and these often outweigh the negative aspects.
5.6 Future directions
This scoping review highlights the fact that pets do have the potential to negatively impact the lives of their guardians quite profoundly, and although there is a wealth of research into the benefits of pet guardianship, the same cannot be said for research addressing the negatives. The research gap between the potential negative aspects of pet guardianship and the benefits of the human animal bond needs to be bridged. Research that investigates the most effective way to prevent these negative aspects, along with appropriately managing them if they occur is needed. With the impact of pet death seen to be potentially severe, it is important that research continues to highlight the best practises for dealing with pet loss, allowing guardians to deal with their grief and bereavement appropriately. The financial constraints of pet guardianship were seen to flow across multiple negative aspects, including the costs addressing problem behaviours, the costs of caring for a sick or aging pet, and the cost of everyday pet care. Research that investigates the impact of low-cost pet care, and financial assistance programs for those who lack specific resources may help to address multiple potential negative aspects of pet guardianship simultaneously. This scoping review is anthropocentric in its focus, however the human animal bond is a bilateral relationship, and future reviews may wish to assess the potential negative aspects of pet guardianship as they relate to the animal, for instance, lack of mental stimulation, risk of abuse, or neglect. Due to the vast difference in what guardianship encompasses for different species of companion animals, it was not possible to encompass all species of pet guardianship in this review. Future reviews may wish to encompass species other than dogs and cats, who can still offer positive impacts to the guardian through the HAB.
6 Conclusion
With pets continuing to be an incredibly popular and important part of people’s lives, it is important that both guardians and society understand the potential negative aspects that can occur from being the guardian to a dog or a cat. This scoping review identified numerous potential negative aspects of pet guardianship. Perceived cost, burden of care and negative aspects of caretaking were the most documented, followed by the negative effects to guardian life satisfaction, and increases in guardians stress, anxiety and/or depression levels. Finally, guardian concern and relinquishment, grief due to the loss of a pet and disenfranchised guilt about dog parenting were also identified as negative aspects of guardianship. These negative aspects listed above were brought about by various aspects of guardianship.
Pets provide many positive impacts to their guardians and are seen as an integral part of many people’s lives, however as previously stated, this relationship is not without its challenges. Through systematic identification of the negative aspects of the human-animal relationship, we can highlight the areas in which there is need for further research. The results of this review can assist social workers, health care professionals and others in effectively addressing and minimising these aspects, leading to better human and animal welfare through further anthrozoological research and interventions. This will contribute to the overall experience for pet guardians and facilitate a relationship which allows both mental and physical health to thrive.
Data availability
The authors confirm that all data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. Furthermore, primary and secondary sources and data supporting the findings of this study were all publicly available at the time of submission.
References
Animal Medicines Australia. Pet Ownership in Australia 2022. 2022. https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AMAU008-Pet-Ownership22-Report_v1.6_WEB.pdf. Accessed 11 Jun 2023.
American Pet Product Association. Facts + Statistics: Pet Ownership and Insurance | III. Am. Pet Prod. Assoc. 2019–2020 Natl. Pet Own. Surv. 2022. https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-pet-ownership-and-insurance. Accessed 11 Jun 2023.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 1995, Special Feature: Household pets . 1995. https://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/5ef8016f420622a3ca2570ec00753524!OpenDocument. Accessed 11 Jun 2023.
Brooks HL, Rushton K, Lovell K, Bee P, Walker L, Grant L, et al. The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18:31.
Cherniack EP, Cherniack AR. The benefit of pets and animal-assisted therapy to the health of older individuals. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2014;2014:1–9.
Matchock RL. Pet ownership and physical health. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015;28:386–92.
Friedmann E, Katcher AH, Lynch JJ, Thomas SA. Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Publ Health Rep Wash DC. 1974;1980(95):307–12.
Serpell J. Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour. J R Soc Med. 1991;84:717–20.
Krause-Parello CA, Sarni S, Padden E. Military veterans and canine assistance for post-traumatic stress disorder: a narrative review of the literature. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;47:43–50.
Taylor MF, Edwards ME, Pooley JA. “Nudging them back to reality”: toward a growing public acceptance of the role dogs fulfill in ameliorating contemporary veterans’ PTSD symptoms. Anthrozoös. 2013;26:593–611.
Lass-Hennemann J, Peyk P, Streb M, Holz E, Michael T. Presence of a dog reduces subjective but not physiological stress responses to an analog trauma. Front Psychol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01010.
Parslow RA, Jorm AF, Christensen H, Rodgers B, Jacomb P. Pet ownership and health in older adults: findings from a survey of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60–64. Gerontology. 2005;51:40–7.
Herzog H. The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011;20:236–9.
Bauman A, Owen KB, Torske MO, Ding D, Krokstad S, Stamatakis E. Does dog ownership really prolong survival? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13: e006907.
Herzog H. Are Pets as Good for Us as We Think They Are? | Psychology Today Australia. Psychol. Today. 2024. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/animals-and-us/202109/are-pets-good-us-we-think-they-are. Accessed 5 Sep 2023.
Wells DL. Associations between pet ownership and self-reported health status in people suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome. J Altern Complement Med. 2009;15:407–13.
Rodriguez KE, Herzog H, Gee NR. Variability in human-animal interaction research. Front Vet Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.619600.
Dendle C, Looke D. Management of mammalian bites. Aust Fam Physician. 2009;38:868–74.
Podberscek AL. Positive and negative aspects of our relationship with companion animals. Vet Res Commun. 2006;30:21–7.
Brennan A, Hawley J, Dhand N, Boland L, Beatty JA, Lappin MR, et al. Seroprevalence and Risk Factors for Toxoplasma gondii Infection in owned domestic cats in Australia. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2020;20:275–80.
Chalkowski K, Wilson AE, Lepczyk CA, Zohdy S. Who let the cats out? A global meta-analysis on risk of parasitic infection in indoor versus outdoor domestic cats (Felis catus ). Biol Lett. 2019;15:20180840.
Landsberg GM, Denenberg S. Behavior problems of the senior cat. In: Feline Behav Health Welf. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. p. 344–56.
Mondelli F, Prato Previde E, Verga M, Levi D, Magistrelli S, Valsecchi P. The bond that never developed: adoption and relinquishment of dogs in a rescue shelter. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2004;7:253–66.
Cannas S, Talamonti Z, Mazzola S, Minero M, Picciolini A, Palestrini C. Factors associated with dog behavioral problems referred to a behavior clinic. J Vet Behav. 2018;24:42–7.
Wrobel TA, Dye AL. Grieving pet death: normative, gender, and attachment issues. OMEGA J Death Dying. 2003;47:385–93.
Clower T, Thornton T. The health care cost savings of pet ownership. Washington: Human Animal Bond Research Initiative (HABRI); 2015. p. 1–12.
Hall S, Dolling L, Bristow K, Fuller T, Mills D. Updates on the economic impact of companion animals to the UK. In: Companion Anim Econ Econ Impact Companion Anim UK Res Rep. Wallingford: CABI; 2017. p. 19–30.
Parslow RA, Jorm AF. The impact of pet ownership on health and health service use: results from a community sample of Australians aged 40 to 44 years. Anthrozoös. 2003;16:43–56.
Stallones L, Marx MB, Garrity TF, Johnson TP. Pet ownership and attachment in relation to the health of U.S. adults, 21 to 64 years of age. Anthrozoös. 1990;4:100–12.
Miyake K, Kito K, Kotemori A, Sasaki K, Yamamoto J, Otagiri Y, et al. Association between pet ownership and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:3498.
Animal Medicines Australia. Pets and the Pandemic: a social research snapshot of pets and people in the COVID-19 era—Animal Medicines Australia. 2021. https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/report/pets-and-the-pandemic-a-social-research-snapshot-of-pets-and-people-in-the-covid-19-era-2/. Accessed 13 Jun 2023.
Polick CS, Applebaum JW, Hanna C, Jackson D, Tsaras-Schumacher S, Hawkins R, et al. The impact of pet care needs on medical decision-making among hospitalized patients: a cross-sectional analysis of patient experience. J Patient Exp. 2021;8:237437352110460.
Julien DA, Sargeant JM, Filejski C, Versluis AM, Waind V, Harper SL. Unleashing the literature: a scoping review of canine zoonotic and vectorborne disease research in Canis familiaris in North America. Anim Health Res Rev. 2021;22:26–39.
Duncan-Sutherland N, Lissaman AC, Shepherd M, Kool B. Systematic review of dog bite prevention strategies. Inj Prev. 2022;28:288–97.
Lambert K, Coe J, Niel L, Dewey C, Sargeant JM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the proportion of dogs surrendered for dog-related and owner-related reasons. Prev Vet Med. 2015;118:148–60.
McNicholas J. The role of pets in the lives of older people: a review. Work Older People. 2014;18:128–33.
Kerman N, Gran-Ruaz S, Lem M. Pet ownership and homelessness: a scoping review. J Soc Distress Homeless. 2019;28:1–9.
Lindsay S, Thiyagarajah K. A scoping review of the benefits and challenges of using service dogs for finding and maintaining employment. J Occup Rehabil. 2022;32:27–43.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.
Man’s best friend: global pet ownership and feeding trends. 2024. https://www.gfk.com/insights/mans-best-friend-global-pet-ownership-and-feeding-trends. Accessed 13 Jun 2023.
FEDIAF | Statistics. 2024. https://europeanpetfood.org/about/statistics/. Accessed 13 Jun 2023.
Scopus content | Elsevier . 2024. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content
Covidence - Better systematic review management . Covidence. 2024. https://www.covidence.org/. Accessed 15 Jul 2023.
Spitznagel MB, Jacobson DM, Cox MD, Carlson MD. Caregiver burden in owners of a sick companion animal: a cross-sectional observational study. Vet Rec. 2017;181:321.
Tzivian L, Friger M, Kushnir T. Associations between stress and quality of life: differences between owners keeping a living dog or losing a dog by euthanasia. PLoS ONE. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121081.
Spitznagel MB, Cox MD, Jacobson DM, Albers AL, Carlson MD. Assessment of caregiver burden and associations with psychosocial function, veterinary service use, and factors related to treatment plan adherence among owners of dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;254:124–32.
Spitznagel MB, Solc M, Chapman KR, Updegraff J, Albers AL, Carlson MD. Caregiver burden in the veterinary dermatology client: comparison to healthy controls and relationship to quality of life. Vet Dermatol. 2019;30:3-e2.
Shaevitz MH, Tullius JA, Callahan RT, Fulkerson CM, Spitznagel MB. Early caregiver burden in owners of pets with suspected cancer: owner psychosocial outcomes, communication behavior, and treatment factors. J Vet Intern Med. 2020;34:2636–44.
Freeman LM, Rush JE, Helburn AM. Validation of a health-related quality of life (QoL) questionnaire for owners of dogs with heart disease. Anthrozoos. 2018;31:685–93.
Freeman LM, Rush JE, Clark MA, Bulmer BJ. Validation and preliminary data from a health-related quality of life questionnaire for owners of dogs with cardiac disease. J Vet Intern Med. 2020;34:1119–26.
González-Ramírez MT, Vanegas-Farfano M, Landero-Hernández R. Differences in stress and happiness between owners who perceive their dogs as well behaved or poorly behaved when they are left alone. J Vet Behav. 2018;28:1–5.
Kogan LR, Wallace JE, Hellyer PW, Carr ECJ. Canine Caregivers: paradoxical challenges and rewards. Animals. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091074.
Carlini G, Marchetti V, Lippi I, Guidi G. Pet’s diseases and owner’s anxiety: Is the leash an umbilical cord? Dog Behav. 2015;1:1–5.
Adrian JAL, Stitt A. Pet loss, complicated grief, and post-traumatic stress disorder in Hawaii. Anthrozoos. 2017;30:123–33.
Adrian JAL, Stitt A. There for you: attending pet euthanasia and whether this relates to complicated grief and post-traumatic stress disorder. Anthrozoos. 2019;32:701–13.
Merkouri A, Graham TM, O’Haire ME, Purewal R, Westgarth C. Dogs and the good life: a cross-sectional study of the association between the dog-owner relationship and owner mental wellbeing. Front Psychol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903647.
Meyer I, Forkman B. Dog and owner characteristics affecting the dog-owner relationship. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2014;9:143–50.
Bouma EMC, Vink LM, Dijkstra A. Social-cognitive processes before dog acquisition associated with future relationship satisfaction of dog owners and canine behavior problems. Anthrozoos. 2020;33:659–72.
van Herwijnen IR, van der Borg JAM, Naguib M, Beerda B. Dog ownership satisfaction determinants in the owner-dog relationship and the dog’s behaviour. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0204592.
Britton K, Galioto R, Tremont G, Chapman K, Hogue O, Carlson MD, et al. Caregiving for a companion animal compared to a family member: burden and positive experiences in caregivers. Front Vet Sci. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00325.
Henning J, Nielson T, Nettifee J, Muñana K, Hazel S. Understanding the impacts of feline epilepsy on cats and their owners. Vet Rec. 2021;189: e836.
Spitznagel MB, Hillier A, Gober M, Carlson MD. Treatment complexity and caregiver burden are linked in owners of dogs with allergic/atopic dermatitis. Vet Dermatol. 2021;32:192-e50.
Spitznagel MB, Patrick K, Hillier A, Gober M, Carlson MD. Caregiver burden, treatment complexity, and the veterinarian–client relationship in owners of dog with skin disease. Vet Dermatol. 2022;33:208–13.
Spitznagel MB, Jacobson DM, Cox MD, Carlson MD. Predicting caregiver burden in general veterinary clients: contribution of companion animal clinical signs and problem behaviors. Vet J. 2018;236:23–30.
Jacobetty R, Lopes D, Fatjó J, Bowen J, Rodrigues DL. Psychological correlates of attitudes toward pet relinquishment and of actual pet relinquishment: the role of pragmatism and obligation. Animals. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10010063.
Barrios CL, Gornall V, Bustos-López C, Cirac R, Calvo P. Creation and validation of a tool for evaluating Caregiver burnout syndrome in owners of dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) diagnosed with behavior disorders. Animals. 2022;12:1185.
Elsem VN, Lugo A, Simone G, Colombo P, Pacifici R, Silvano G. Sleep dissatisfaction and insufficient sleep duration in the Italian population. Sci Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72612-4.
Hoffman CL, Stutz K, Vasilopoulos T. An examination of adult women’s sleep quality and sleep routines in relation to pet ownership and bedsharing. Anthrozoos. 2018;31:711–25.
Barnard-Nguyen S, Breit M, Anderson KA, Nielsen J. Pet Loss and grief: identifying at-risk pet owners during the euthanasia process. Anthrozoos. 2016;29:421–30.
Green C, Kangas M, Fairholm I. Investigating the emotion regulation strategies implemented by adults grieving the death of a pet in Australia and the UK. J Loss Trauma. 2018;23:484.
Lee SA. Religion and pet loss: afterlife beliefs, religious coping, prayer and their associations with sorrow. Br J Guid Couns. 2016;44:123–9.
Testoni I, De Cataldo L, Ronconi L, Colombo ES, Stefanini C, Dal Zotto B, et al. Pet grief: tools to assess owners’ bereavement and veterinary communication skills. Animals. 2019;9:67.
Uccheddu S, De Cataldo L, Albertini M, Coren S, Da Graça G, Pereira HA, et al. Pet humanisation and related grief: development and validation of a structured questionnaire instrument to evaluate grief in people who have lost a companion dog. Animals. 2019;9:933.
Matte AR, Khosa DK, Coe JB, Meehan M, Lee N. Exploring pet owners’ experiences and self-reported satisfaction and grief following companion animal euthanasia. Vet Rec. 2020;187: e122.
King LC, Werner PD. Attachment, social support, and responses following the death of a companion animal. Omega. 2011;64:1.
Packman W, Bussolari C, Katz R, Carmack BJ, Field NP. Posttraumatic growth following the loss of a pet. Omega U S. 2017;75:337–59.
Cowling DM, Isenstein SGE, Schneider MS. When the bond breaks: variables associated with grief following companion animal loss. Anthrozoos. 2020;33:693–708.
Kogan LR, Bussolari C, Currin-Mcculloch J, Packman W, Erdman P. Disenfranchised guilt—pet owners’ burden. Animals. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12131690.
Barcelos AM, Kargas N, Maltby J, Hall S, Assheton P, Mills DS. Theoretical foundations to the impact of dog-related activities on human hedonic well-being, life satisfaction and eudaimonic well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:12382.
Normando S, Venturini T, Filugelli L, Bonetti O, Mutinelli F, Contalbrigo L. Cat-human bond: Satisfaction and behavioural complaints among Italian respondents. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105749.
Onodera N, Uchida K, Kakuma Y. Association between characteristics of cats and satisfaction of owners who adopted cats from an animal hospital in Japan. J Vet Med Sci. 2014;76:729–33.
Brkljačić T, Sučić I, Lučić L, Glavak Tkalić R, Kaliterna LL. The beginning, the end, and all the happiness in between: pet owners’ wellbeing from pet acquisition to death. Anthrozoos. 2020;33:71–87.
Nettifee JA, Munana KR, Griffith EH. Evaluation of the impacts of epilepsy in dogs on their caregivers. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2017;53:143–9.
Suici T, DărăbuȘ G, Mederle N, Sîrbu C, Imre M, Morariu S. The effect of atopic dermatitis on quality of life of affected dogs and their owners in Romania. J Vet Behav. 2021;46:24–30.
Barcelos AM, Niko K, Maltby J, Hall S, Mills DS. A framework for understanding how activities associated with dog ownership relate to human well-being. Sci Rep. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68446-9.
Gates MC, Zito S, Thomas J, Dale A. Post-adoption problem behaviours in adolescent and adult dogs rehomed through a New Zealand animal shelter. Animals. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8060093.
Strand EB, Faver CA. Battered women’s concern for their pets: a closer look. J Fam Soc Work. 2005;9:39–58.
Obradović N, Lagueux É, Latulippe K, Provencher V. Understanding the benefits, challenges, and the role of pet ownership in the daily lives of community-dwelling older adults: a case study. Animals. 2021;11:2628.
Scanlon L, Hobson-West P, Cobb K, McBride A, Stavisky J. Homeless people and their dogs: exploring the nature and impact of the human-companion animal bond. Anthrozoos. 2021;34:77–92.
Cavazos AM, Faver CA. Animal abuse and domestic violence: a view from the border. J Emot Abuse. 2007;7:59–81.
Hardesty JL, Khaw L, Ridgway MS, Weber C, Miles T. Coercive control and abused women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter. J Interpers Violence. 2013;28:2617.
Larson BR, Looker S, Herrera DM, Creagan ET, Hayman SR, Kaur JS, et al. Cancer patients and their companion animals: results from a 309-patient survey on pet-related concerns and anxieties during chemotherapy. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25:396.
Christiansen SB, Kristensen AT, Sandoe P, Lassen J. Looking after chronically ill dogs: impacts on the caregiver’s life. Anthrozoos. 2013;26:519–33.
Dwyer F, Bennett PC, Coleman GJ. Development of the monash dog owner relationship scale (MDORS). Anthrozoös. 2006;19:243–56.
Aptekmann KP, Schwartz DS. A survey of owner attitudes and experiences in managing diabetic dogs. Vet J. 2011;190:e122-4.
Aptekmann KP, Armstrong J, Coradini M, Rand J. Owner experiences in treating dogs and cats diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in the United States. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2014;50:247–53.
Chandler CK. Eight domains of pet-owner wellness: implications for counselors and counselor training. In: Clin Guide Treat Companion Anim Issues Addressing Hum-Anim Interact. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019. p. 103–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812962-3.00006-X.
Hupfeld J, Dölle M, Volk H, Rieder J. Effect of long-term management of hypoadrenocorticism on the quality of life of affected dogs and their owners. Vet Rec. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.1977.
Kendall K, Ley J. Cat ownership in Australia: barriers to ownership and behavior. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2006;1:5–16.
Linek M, Favrot C. Impact of canine atopic dermatitis on the health-related quality of life of affected dogs and quality of life of their owners. Vet Dermatol. 2010;21:456–62.
McDonald SE, Matijczak A, Nicotera N, Applebaum JW, Kremer L, Natoli G, et al. “He was like, my ride or die”: sexual and gender minority emerging adults’ perspectives on living with pets during the transition to adulthood. Emerg Adulthood. 2022;10:1008–25.
Meier C, Maurer J. Buddy or burden? Patterns, perceptions, and experiences of pet ownership among older adults in Switzerland. Eur J Ageing. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-022-00696-0.
Krahn LE, Tovar MD, Miller B. Are pets in the bedroom a problem? Mayo Clin Proc. 2015;90:1663–5.
Smith B, Thompson K, Clarkson L, Dawson D. The prevalence and implications of human–animal co-sleeping in an Australian sample. Anthrozoos. 2014;27:543–51.
Howe L, Easterbrook MJ. The perceived costs and benefits of pet ownership for homeless people in the UK: practical costs, psychological benefits and vulnerability. J Poverty. 2018;22:486–99.
Haslam D, Filus A, Finch J. The guilt about parenting scale (GAPS): development and initial validation of a self-report measure of parenting guilt, and the relationship between parenting guilt and work and family variables. J Child Fam Stud. 2020;29:880–94.
Bussolari CJ, Habarth J, Katz R, Phillips S, Carmack B, Packman W. The euthanasia decision-making process: a qualitative exploration of bereaved companion animal owners. Bereave Care. 2018;37:101.
Pratt SR. Mourning the loss of a pet. Illn Crisis Loss. 1998;6:396.
Reisbig Allison MJ, McArthur H, Siqueira Drake AA, Girard D, Breunig ZB. Companion animal death. Omega. 2017;75:124–50.
Rémillard LW, Meehan MP, Kelton DF, Coe JB. Exploring the grief experience among callers to a pet loss support hotline. Anthrozoos. 2017;30:149–61.
Packer RMA, Volk HA, Fowkes RC. Physiological reactivity to spontaneously occurring seizure activity in dogs with epilepsy and their carers. Physiol Behav. 2017;177:27–33.
Cleary M, West S, Visentin D, Phipps M, Westman M, Vesk K, et al. The unbreakable bond: the mental health benefits and challenges of pet ownership for people experiencing homelessness. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2021;42:741–6.
Labrecque J, Walsh CA. Homeless women’s voices on incorporating companion animals into shelter services. Anthrozoos. 2011;24:79–95.
Slatter J, Lloyd C, King R. Homelessness and companion animals: more than just a pet? Br J Occup Ther. 2012;75:377–83.
Devera MR, Cristobal GAJ, Deguzman CPC, Mariño EMV, Palomares AML, Sonajo JHC. Experiences, reasons, and challenges of filipino cat lovers who adopted multiple stray cats. North Am J Psychol. 2022;24:505–14.
Shore ER, Burdsal C, Douglas DK. Pet owners’ views of pet behavior problems and willingness to consult experts for assistance. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2008;11:63–73.
Rauktis ME, Lee H, Bickel L, Giovengo H, Nagel M, Cahalane H. Food security challenges and health opportunities of companion animal ownership for low-income adults. J Evid-Based Soc Work U S. 2020;17:662–76.
Lord MS, Casey RA, Kinsman RH, Tasker S, Knowles TG, Da Costa REP, et al. Owner perception of problem behaviours in dogs aged 6 and 9-months. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2020;232:105147.
Powdrill-Wells N, Taylor S, Melfi V. Reducing dog relinquishment to rescue centres due to behaviour problems: identifying cases to target with an advice intervention at the point of relinquishment request. Animals. 2021;11:2766.
Frommer SS, Arluke A. Loving them to death: blame-displacing strategies of animal shelter workers and surrenderers. Soc Anim. 1999;7:1–16.
Blackwell EJ, Casey RA, Bradshaw JWS. Efficacy of written behavioral advice for separation-related behavior problems in dogs newly adopted from a rehoming center. J Vet Behav. 2016;12:13–9.
Odendaal JSJ. An ethological approach to the problem of dogs digging holes. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 1997;52:299–305.
Hägvide M-L, Larsson TJ, Borell L. Fall scenarios In causing older women’s hip fractures. Scand J Occup Ther. 2013;20:21–8.
Kwan JY, Bain MJ. Owner attachment and problem behaviors related to relinquishment and training techniques of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2013;16:168–83.
Daniels JT, Busby D, Chase-Topping M, Brown SM. A survey of dog behavior modification practice in the UK: who is offering it, what methods are they using and how effective do their clients perceive practitioners to be? J Vet Behav. 2023;59:1–7.
Jensen JBH, Sandøe P, Nielsen SS. Owner-related reasons matter more than behavioural problems—a study of why owners relinquished dogs and cats to a danish animal shelter from 1996 to 2017. Animals. 2020;10:1064.
Researching The Right Dog For You. 2024. https://dogsaustralia.org.au/getting-a-dog/researching-the-right-dog-for-you/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAmNeqBhD4ARIsADsYfTemwksdnRlOucITnO4BYkxrMV5R_DQbhvUbJrfd2cU91WCavp8pOtsaApguEALw_wcB. Accessed 7 Sep 2023.
O’Neill DG, James H, Brodbelt DC, Church DB, Pegram C. Prevalence of commonly diagnosed disorders in UK dogs under primary veterinary care: results and applications. BMC Vet Res. 2021;17:69.
Coe JB, Adams CL, Bonnett BN. A focus group study of veterinarians’ and pet owners’ perceptions of the monetary aspects of veterinary care. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2007;231:1510–8.
Quain A, Ward MP, Mullan S. Ethical challenges posed by advanced veterinary care in companion animal veterinary practice. Animals. 2021;11:3010.
Bir C, Ortez M, Olynk Widmar NJ, Wolf CA, Hansen C, Ouedraogo FB. Familiarity and Use of veterinary services by us resident dog and cat owners. Animals. 2020;10:483.
Animal Medicines Australia. Pets in Australia: a national survey of pets and people—Animal Medicines Australia. 2019. https://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/report/pets-in-australia-a-national-survey-of-pets-and-people/. Accessed 9 Sep 2023.
Pet care support—RSPCA South Australia. 2024. https://www.rspcasa.org.au/the-issues/petcaresupport/. Accessed 9 Sep 2023.
Toohey AM, Rock MJ. Unleashing their potential: a critical realist scoping review of the influence of dogs on physical activity for dog-owners and non-owners. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:46.
Gee NR, Mueller MK. A systematic review of research on pet ownership and animal interactions among older adults. Anthrozoös. 2019;32:183–207.
McDowall S, Hazel SJ, Chittleborough C, Hamilton-Bruce A, Stuckey R, Howell TJ. The impact of the social determinants of human health on companion animal welfare. Animals. 2023;13:1113.
Polinsky S. Dogs in the islamic tradition: a revisionist examination. Soc Anim. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10093.
Power E. Furry families: making a human–dog family through home. Soc Cult Geogr. 2008;9:535–55.
Chur-Hansen A. Grief and bereavement issues and the loss of a companion animal: people living with a companion animal, owners of livestock, and animal support workers. Clin Psychol. 2010;14:14–21.
Doka KJ. Disenfranchised grief. Bereave Care. 1999;18:37–9.
Boelen PA, Van Den Bout J. Complicated grief and uncomplicated grief are distinguishable constructs. Psychiatry Res. 2008;157:311–4.
Clarke A. What If the Pain of Pet Loss Becomes Too Much to Bear? | Psychology Today Australia. Psychol. Today. 2017. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/animal-attachment/201704/what-if-the-pain-pet-loss-becomes-too-much-bear. Accessed 12 Sep 2023.
Westgarth C, Christley RM, Marvin G, Perkins E. The responsible dog owner: the construction of responsibility. Anthrozoos. 2019;32:631–46.
Belshaw Z, Dean R, Asher L. “You can be blind because of loving them so much”: the impact on owners in the United Kingdom of living with a dog with osteoarthritis. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16:1.
Dawson S, Campbell B. Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree? Questioning the Appropriateness of Human Models for Understanding Bereavement as Applied to the Experience of Companion Animal Loss through Euthanasia. Interface Probing Boundaries. 2009. p. 97–113.
Funding
There was no financial support from any institutions other than the University of Adelaide.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Topic conception and Research questions: Joshua Zoanetti, Dr Susan Hazel, Dr Torben Dahl Nielsen. Data collection: Joshua Zoanetti, Dr Susan Hazel, Dr Torben Dahl Nielsen. Data screening and interpretation: Joshua Zoanetti, Dr Susan Hazel & Dr Torben Dahl Nielsen. Draft manuscript preparation: Joshua Zoanetti, Dr Susan Hazel, Dr Torben Dahl Nielsen. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
There are no competing interests with any authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Scopus
(TITLE-ABS-KEY ((pet OR pets OR dog OR dogs OR cat OR cats OR “companion animal” OR “companion animals”) W/5 (own* OR guardian* OR adult* OR caretaker)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (burden* OR concern* OR difficult* OR trouble* OR negative* OR challenge* OR guilt OR obligation* OR stress* OR financ* OR responsib* OR expens* OR satisfaction OR problem* OR issue* OR cost OR costs)) AND PUBYEAR > 1994 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND (EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “BIOC”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “IMMU”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENVI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ENGI”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “COMP”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “ARTS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “DENT”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATE”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “PHYS”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CHEM”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “MATH”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “CENG”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, "ENER") OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “NEUR”) OR EXCLUDE (SUBJAREA, “EART”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “cp”)) AND (EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Animal Model”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Animal Tissue”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Animal Disease”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Blood”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Metabolism”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Diagnostic Imaging”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Histopathology”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Genetics”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Blood Sampling”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Computer Assisted Tomography”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Animal Cell”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Creatinine”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Urinalysis”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Immunology”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Histology”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Sensitivity And Specificity”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Rabies”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Positron Emission Tomography”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Epidemiology”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Isolation And Purification”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Propofol”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Blood Cell Count”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Polymerase Chain Reaction”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Immunohistochemistry”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Radiography”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Echocardiography”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Object Relation”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Isoflurane”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Glucose”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Body Weight”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Diet”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Obesity”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Pathology”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Information Processing”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Surgery”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Osteoarthritis”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Breeding”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Sex Difference”) OR EXCLUDE (EXACTKEYWORD, “Drug Effect”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)).
ProQuest
(((((((TIAB((pet OR pets OR dog OR dogs OR cat OR cats OR “companion animal” OR “companion animals”) NEAR/5 (own* OR guardian* OR adult* OR caretaker*)) OR “animal-human bond” OR “human-animal bond" OR "companion animal”) AND TIAB(burden* OR concern* OR difficult* OR trouble* OR negative* OR challenge* OR guilt OR obligation* OR stress* OR financ* OR responsib* OR expens* OR satisfaction OR problem* OR issue* OR cost))) NOT (subt.exact(“laboratories” OR “antibiotics” OR “bacteria” OR “pathogens” OR “antimicrobial agents” OR “drug resistance” OR “rabies” OR “proteins” OR “deoxyribonucleic acid dna” OR “polymerase chain reaction” OR “genomes” OR “antigens” OR “antibodies” OR “genes” OR “nutrition” OR “tumors” OR “urine” OR “wildlife” OR "breeding of animals” OR “diet” OR “surgery” OR “hormones”) AND la.exact("ENG") AND pd(19950101–20221115) AND PEER(yes))) AND (stype.exact(“Scholarly Journals” OR “Dissertations & Theses” OR “Conference Papers & Proceedings”) AND la.exact(“ENG”) AND pd(19950101–20221115) AND PEER(yes))) NOT (subt.exact(“coronaviruses” OR “epidemiology” OR “obesity” OR “children & youth” OR “immunization”) AND pd(19950101–20221115) AND PEER(yes))) NOT (at.exact(“Review” OR “News” OR “Front Page/Cover Story” OR "Editorial” OR “Letter to the Editor” OR “Literature Review”) NOT subt.exact(“infections” OR “livestock” OR “horses” OR “parasites” OR “laboratory animals” OR “legislation” OR “wildlife conservation” OR “systematic review” OR “tomography” OR “anesthesia” OR “cattle”) AND la.exact("ENG").
Pubmed.
(pet[Title/Abstract] OR dog[Title/Abstract] OR cat[Title/Abstract] OR companion animal[Title/Abstract]) AND (burden*[Title/Abstract] OR concern*[Title/Abstract] OR difficult*[Title/Abstract] OR trouble*[Title/Abstract] OR negative*[Title/Abstract] OR challenge*[Title/Abstract] OR guilt*[Title/Abstract] OR obligation*[Title/Abstract] OR stress*[Title/Abstract] OR financ*[Title/Abstract] OR responsib*[Title/Abstract] OR expens*[Title/Abstract] OR satisfaction[Title/Abstract] OR problem*[Title/Abstract] OR issue*[Title/Abstract] OR cost[Title/Abstract]) AND ((owner*[Title/Abstract] OR guardian*[Title/Abstract])).
Appendix 2
See Tables 4 and 5
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zoanetti, J., Nielsen, T.D. & Hazel, S. The potential negative impacts of pet guardianship on the guardian, a scoping review. Discov Anim 1, 11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44338-024-00014-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44338-024-00014-1