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).

Fig. 1
figure 1

A PRISMA flow diagram: process used in identification and screening of sources (n = 6871)

Full size image

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.

Table 1 Study region, pet demographics, guardian demographics and study methodology for the 76 studies identified in the scoping review process
Full size table

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.

Table 2 Each validated measure used to measure specific negative aspect of guardianship
Full size table

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].

Table 3 Identified negative effects on the guardian and non-measured challenges of pet guardianship, along with their causative factors
Full size table

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.