Abstract
We examined the influence of dog ownership on physical activity, independent of demographic, intrapersonal, and perceived environmental factors, in a cross-sectional survey of 1813 adults. Although only 23% of the dog owners walked their dogs 5 or more times per week, the adjusted odds of achieving sufficient physical activity and walking were 57% to 77% higher among dog owners compared with those not owning dogs (P< .05). Dog ownership was independently associated with physical activity and walking. Actively encouraging more dog walking may increase community physical activity levels.
If your dog is fat, you aren’t getting enough exercise.
—Anonymous
Effective strategies are required to increase population levels of physical activity.1 Dog walking has the potential to increase physical activity in a large proportion of the community. The few studies conducted have reported that 40% to 80% of dog owners walk their dog,2–6 with considerable variation in total reported physical activity and walking.2,3,7,8 The extent to which dog walking is sufficient to produce health benefits for both owner and dog requires further investigation.9 Also, greater understanding of factors associated with physical activity and dog ownership would assist future interventions.10–13 In this study, we used an ecological model14 to examine the independent influence of dog ownership on physical activity and walking after adjusting for known correlates of physical activity and walking.
We examined cross-sectional data from 1813 participants taking part in the first phase (September 2003–March 2005) of the RESIDential Environment (RESIDE) project. RESIDE is a 5-year longitudinal study of people building homes in 74 new housing estates in Perth, Australia. The study aims to evaluate the impact of the state government’s subdivision design code on walking, cycling, public transportation use, and sense of community. The RESIDE methods have been reported elsewhere.15,16 Participants were aged 19 to 78 years (mean age = 40.0), and 40.5% were men. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Western Australia, and all participants provided written consent.
We used the Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire15 to collect self-reported physical activity and walking data over a usual week from RESIDE participants. Sufficient “total physical activity” and “total walking” were dichotomized at 150 min/wk according to recommended guidelines.17 “Sufficient walking for recreation in the neighborhood” was dichotomized at 90 min/wk. Dog owners also reported usual frequency of personally walking their dog.
Modified versions of items previously reported were used to measure physical and social environmental perceptions,18–20 intrapersonal factors (i.e., intention, attitude toward trying, perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, behavioral skills, and enjoyment),21–23 and sociodemographic characteristics.
We used SPSS version 12.0.1 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) to conduct analyses. We used the χ2 and independent sample t tests to examine bivariate relations between dog ownership and independent variables. We used logistic regression to explore the association between dog ownership and “sufficient” (1) physical activity, (2) walking, and (3) walking for recreation in the neighborhood. Blocked forward stepwise procedures were used to enter variables (1 = sociodemographic, 2 = physical environmental, 3 = social environmental, 4 = intrapersonal), with significant variables for each block forced into subsequent models along with dog ownership (0 = no, 1 = yes).
Overall, 44% of the participants owned a dog (Table 1). Dog owners were significantly more likely than those who did not own a dog (nonowners) to be women, to have been born in Australia, to have older children, to live in a single-family home, and to work in clerical, sales, or service occupations. Dog owners perceived their neighborhoods as more attractive and rated ease of access to parks and nature reserves higher than did nonowners. Dog owners perceived that they had more social support from their family in the last month to walk and to do other forms of physical activity and reported higher neighborhood cohesion than did nonowners. In addition, compared with nonowners, dog owners had higher scores for intention to walk and to do other leisure-time physical activity at the recommended levels, confidence that they could adhere to walking daily irrespective of barriers (such as work, family, or social commitments), perceived behavioral control, and use of behavioral skills (such as setting goals and planning days and times to exercise).
In a usual week, a minority of dog owners (22%) never walked their dog or did so 5 or more times per week (23%); the average was 2.6 times per week. Dog walking in the neighborhood accounted for approximately 65% of all walking sessions reported within the neighborhood and for approximately 93% of all walking-for-recreation sessions within the neighborhood.
Usual frequency and duration of total walking, walking for recreation, walking in the neighborhood, walking for recreation in the neighborhood, and total physical activity (duration only) were higher among dog owners than among nonowners (Table 1). After we adjusted analyses for sociodemographic, neighborhood, social environmental, and intrapersonal factors, the odds of achieving “sufficient physical activity,” “sufficient walking,” and “sufficient walking for recreation in the neighborhood” remained 57% to 77% higher among dog owners compared with nonowners (P < .05; Table 2).
Although only 23% of the dog owners walked with their dog 5 or more times per week, compared with nonowners, dog owners completed significantly more minutes and sessions of walking (generally, for recreation, and for recreation in their neighborhood) and more minutes of total physical activity. These differences were independent of all other known major correlates of physical activity and walking, including demographic factors, perceptions of the physical and social environments, and intrapersonal factors.
The results confirm the potentially important role that dogs could play in increasing levels of physical activity among owners. Interventions designed to increase the proportion of dog owners who regularly walk with their dogs at recommended levels of physical activity are warranted. If successful, these programs have the potential to produce considerable health, community, and economic benefits.2,24
Note. NA = not applicable. a1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree. b1 = never; 2 = less than once a month; 3 = at least once a month; 4 = 1–2 times/wk; 5 = 3 or more times/wk. c1 = very unlikely; 7 = very likely. d1 = very unpleasant/negative/difficult; 7 = very pleasant/positive/easy. e1 = sure I could not do it; 5 = sure I could do it. f1 = never; 5 = most days. Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. aAdjusted for sociodemographic factors only (gender, age, country of origin, education, occupation, mean age of children living at home under 18 years, type of residence). bAdjusted for model 2 factors plus perceived neighborhood characteristics. Sufficient physical activity = crime safety. Sufficient walking = land-use mix, street connectivity, and crime safety. Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = land-use mix, walking facilities, and crime safety. cAdjusted for model 3 factors plus social environmental factors. Sufficient physical activity = family social support for walking and other physical activity. Sufficient walking and sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = family social support for walking. dAdjusted for model 4 factors plus intrapersonal factors. Sufficient physical activity = intention to do other physical activity, self-efficacy, and behavioral skills. Sufficient walking = intention to walk, behavioral skills, and perceived behavioral control. Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood = intention to walk, enjoyment, self-efficacy, behavioral skills, and perceived behavioral control. * P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Characteristic Dog Owners (n = 804) Nonowners (n = 1009) P Sociodemographic Men, % 36.1 44.0 .001 Mean age, y (SD) 39.4 (11.6) 40.5 (12.1) .049 Born in Australia, % 61.1 53.8 .002 Marital status, % .232 Married/cohabitating 82.8 80.4 Separated/divorced/widowed 6.6 8.7 Single 10.6 10.9 Education, % .032 12 years or less 41.0 38.1 Trade school or apprentice 38.8 36.4 Undergraduate degree or greater 20.2 25.5 Employment status, % .069 Employed 83.5 80.6 Unemployed 13.0 13.6 Retired 3.5 5.8 Occupation, % .017 Management/administration 15.3 15.1 Professional 25.2 29.8 Blue collar 17.4 16.9 Clerical, sales, service industry 26.7 20.6 Not in workforce 15.3 17.6 Annual household income, Aus $, % .102 ≤ 49 999 23.7 27.8 50 000–69 999 24.3 25.4 70 000–89 999 23.7 22.9 ≥ 90,000 28.3 23.9 Children under 18 y living at home, % 68.3 70.6 .167 Mean age of children living at home, y (SD) 8.65 (5.4) 6.90 (5.1) < .001 Type of residence, % < .001 Single-family dwelling 90.9 79.4 Semiattached 5.6 10.7 Apartment 3.3 9.7 Mobile home 0.3 0.3 Physical environmental subscalesa Mixed-access land use, mean (SD) 3.41 (0.63) 3.45 (0.59) .204 Aesthetics, mean (SD) 3.43 (0.69) 3.32 (0.68) .001 Walking facilities, mean (SD) 3.38 (0.58) 3.36 (0.59) .650 Park or nature reserve that is easily accessible, mean (SD) 4.23 (0.74) 4.06 (0.83) < .001 Street connectivity, mean (SD) 3.14 (0.45) 3.13 (0.45) .514 Pedestrian/traffic safety, mean (SD) 3.20 (0.53) 3.19 (0.53) .765 Crime safety, mean (SD) 3.45 (0.65) 3.42 (0.66) .233 Social environmental subscales Perceived social support for walking, mean (SD)b Family 2.75 (1.26) 2.59 (1.24) .008 Friends 1.54 (0.90) 1.61 (0.94) .118 Perceived social support for other physical activity, mean (SD)b Family 2.24 (1.16) 2.13 (1.14) .042 Friends 1.71 (1.01) 1.74 (1.05) .614 Neighborhood social cohesion,a mean (SD) 3.03 (0.72) 2.93 (0.69) .002 Intrapersonal items and subscales Intention, mean (SD)c Walk for 30 min on ≥ 5 d/wk 4.61 (2.11) 4.11 (2.17) < .001 Vigorous leisure-time physical activity for total three 20-min sessions/wk 3.87 (2.30) 3.72 (2.32) .157 Other moderate leisure-time physical activity for 30 min on ≥ 5 d/wk 4.10 (2.02) 3.83 (2.06) .005 Enjoyment of walking in neighborhooda 4.09 (0.73) 4.02 (0.77) .068 Attitude toward process of trying to walk on most days, mean (SD)d 5.67 (1.20) 5.60 (1.25) .225 Self-efficacy, mean (SD)e 3.27 (0.95) 3.11 (0.94) .001 Perceived behavioral control, mean (SD)c 5.15 (1.73) 4.78 (1.87) < .001 Behavioral skills, mean (SD)f 2.21 (1.40) 2.02 (1.31) .003 Physical activity in a usual week Minutes of physical activity, mean (SD) Total physical activity 322.4 (338.3) 267.1 (311.9) < .001 Walking for recreation in neighborhood 86.0 (108.0) 52.9 (86.5) < .001 Total walking in neighborhood 114.1 (135.7) 77.8 (109.8) < .001 Total walking for recreation 109.6 (134.4) 70.8 (109.5) < .001 Total walking 150.3 (174.9) 110.9 (144.4) < .001 Frequency in a usual week, mean (SD) Total physical activity 8.74 (15.77) 7.71 (17.27) .206 Walking for recreation in neighborhood 2.75 (3.05) 1.50 (2.20) < .001 Total walking in neighborhood 3.93 (4.37) 2.94 (3.94) < .001 Total walking for recreation 3.26 (3.57) 1.91 (2.64) < .001 Total walking 4.96 (5.55) 4.05 (5.30) .001 Walking with dog in neighborhood 2.55 (2.27) . . . Model 1 (Unadjusted), OR (95% CI) Model 2,a OR (95% CI) Model 3, b OR (95% CI) Model 4,c OR (95% CI) Model 5, d OR (95% CI) Sufficient physical activity (150 min/wk) 1.34** (1.11, 1.61) 1.68*** (1.26, 2.24) 1.70*** (1.27, 2.27) 1.68** (1.25, 2.28) 1.57** (1.14, 2.16) Sufficient walking (150 min/wk) 1.41*** (1.16, 1.71) 1.78*** (1.30, 2.44) 1.75** (1.27, 2.40) 1.76** (1.26, 2.47) 1.59* (1.08, 2.36) Sufficient walking for recreation in neighborhood (90 min/wk) 1.85*** (1.51, 2.25) 1.83*** (1.33, 2.51) 1.81*** (1.31, 2.51) 1.86** (1.31, 2.65) 1.77** (1.19, 2.63)
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council (grant LPO455453), the Petcare Information and Advisory Service (Industry Partner). H. Cutt was supported by an Australian Research Council, Australia postgraduate award. B. Giles-Corti was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/ National Heart Foundation, Career development award. A Timperio was supported by a public health research fellowship from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
The authors acknowledge the contribution of RESIDE chief investigators.
Human Participant Protection This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia.
