The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Population Study
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Materials
2.4. Performed Tests
3. Results
3.1. Descriptives
3.2. Pet Owners vs. Non-Pet Owners
3.3. Type of Companionship (Pets and Humans vs. Human Only)
3.4. Dog vs. Cat Owners
3.5. Demographic and Pet Ownership as Predictors of the Outcome Variables
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The psycho-logical impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajkumar, R.P. COVID-19 and mental health: A review of the existing literature. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 52, 102066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anastasiou, E.; Duquenne, M.-N. What about the “Social Aspect of COVID”? Exploring the Determinants of Social Isolation on the Greek Population during the COVID-19 Lockdown. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.Z.; Ahmed, O.; Aibao, Z.; Hanbin, S.; Siyu, L.; Ahmad, A. Epidemic of COVID-19 in China and associated Psychological Problems. Asian J. Psychiatry 2020, 51, 102092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vincent, A. People and Their Pets in the Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic|Society Register. Soc. Regist. 2020, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Households ‘Buy 3.2 Million Pets in Lockdown’. Available online: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56362987 (accessed on 8 July 2021).
- Fine, A.H. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, C.C.; Barker, S.B. Challenges in Designing Human-Animal Interaction Research. Am. Behav. Sci. 2003, 47, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, A.; Towell, T. Cat and dog companionship and well-being: A systematic review. Int. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 3, 149–155. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, L.; Martin, K.; Christian, H.; Nathan, A.; Lauritsen, C.; Houghton, S.; Kawachi, I.; McCune, S. The Pet Factor—Companion Animals as a Conduit for Getting to Know People, Friendship Formation and Social Support. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, G.; Huang, Y.; Robinson, K.; Wilson, M.S.; Bulbulia, J.; Sibley, C.G. New Zealand Pet Owners’ Demographic Characteristics, Personality, and Health and Wellbeing: More Than Just a Fluff Piece. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 561–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lass-Hennemann, J.; Schäfer, S.K.; Sopp, M.R.; Michael, T. The relationship between dog ownership, psycho-pathological symptoms and health-benefitting factors in occupations at risk for traumatization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grajfoner, D.; Harte, E.; Potter, L.M.; McGuigan, N. The Effect of Dog-Assisted Intervention on Student Well-Being, Mood, and Anxiety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Serpell, J.; McCune, S.; Gee, N.; Griffin, J.A. Current challenges to research on animal-assisted interventions. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2017, 21, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, K.D.; Kim, W.H.; Cho, S.; Cho, S.-I. Owners’ attitudes towards their companion dogs are associated with the owners’ depression symptoms: An exploratory study in South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teoh, H.; Cheong, S.; Suttiwan, P.; Borvonsin, V. In Bonding between pet and pet owner, Animal health: A breakpoint in economic development? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Association of Institutions for Tropical Veterinary Medicine and 16th Veterinary Association Malaysia Congress, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 23–27 August 2004; pp. 310–311. [Google Scholar]
- Muckle, J.; Lasikiewicz, N. An exploration of the benefits of animal-assisted activities in undergraduate students in Singapore. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 20, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valiyamattam, G.J. Animal assisted interventions and geriatric well-being: The Indian context. Indian J. Health Wellbeing 2013, 4, 608. [Google Scholar]
- Global Dog and Cat Pet Population 2018. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1044386/dog-and-cat-pet-population-worldwide/ (accessed on 9 July 2021).
- Debbra, M.; Mastura, Y.; Shariffah, N.; Muhammad, N.K.; Azjeemah, B. Assessing the Status of Pet Ownership in the Community of Putrajaya. Malays. J. Vet. Res. 2019, 10, 61–71. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, P.W.; Yu, R.W.; Ngai, J.T. Companion Animal Ownership and Human Well-Being in a Metropolis—The Case of Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hartwig, E.; Signal, T. Attachment to companion animals and loneliness in Australian adolescents. Aust. J. Psychol. 2020, 72, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Yin, D.; Gao, Q. Sense of Presence and Subjective Well-Being in Online Pet Watching: The Moderation Role of Loneliness and Perceived Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, L.; Edwards, K.M.; McGreevy, P.; Bauman, A.; Podberscek, A.; Neilly, B.; Sherrington, C.; Stamatakis, E. Companion dog acquisition and mental well-being: A community-based three-arm controlled study. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhi, E.X.; Aziz, Z.A.; Taib, N. Introducing Animal-Assisted Intervention for Special Education in Integrated Farming System. IAFOR J. Educ. 2020, 8, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, N.M.; Chang, S.M.W.; Ng, S.S.; Stanaway, F.; Tan, S.L.; Chaiyakunapruk, N. Animal-assisted therapy for dementia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheong, S.K.; Teoh, H.-J.; Ng, A.L.L. The effects of owning a pet on self-esteem and self-efficacy of Malaysian per owners. Sunw. Acad. J. 2005, 2, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
- Zulkifli, W.Z.; Shamsuddin, S.; Hwee, L.T. Animal Robot Assisted-therapy for Rehabilitation of Patient with Post-Stroke Depression. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 210, p. 12005. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, W.W. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences, 7th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tennant, R.; Hiller, L.; Fishwick, R.; Platt, S.; Joseph, S.; Weich, S.; Parkinson, J.; Secker, J.; Stewart-Brown, S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2007, 5, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faudzi, F.N.M.; Armitage, C.J.; Bryant, C.; Brown, L.J. Moderating effects of age on relationships between attitudes to aging and well-being outcomes. Aging Ment. Health 2020, 24, 1620–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, J.D.; Crawford, J.R. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 44, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ng, S.M.; Ke, G.N.; Raymond, W. The mediating role of work locus of control on the relationship among emotional intelligence, organisational citizenship behaviours, and mental health among nurses. Aust. J. Psychol. 2014, 66, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesney, M.A.; Neilands, T.B.; Chambers, D.B.; Taylor, J.M.; Folkman, S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 421–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, S.Z.; Zaremohzzabieh, Z.; Samah, A.A.; Bolong, J.; Shaffril, H.A.M. Influence of Different Facets of Internet Addiction on Subjective Well-being in Malaysia: A Comparison Across Ethnic Groups. J. Komun. Malays. J. Commun. 2020, 36, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoesmith, E.; Shahab, L.; Kale, D.; Mills, D.; Reeve, C.; Toner, P.; de Assis, L.S.; Ratschen, E. The Influence of Human–Animal Interactions on Mental and Physical Health during the First COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in the U.K.: A Qualitative Exploration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowen, J.; García, E.; Darder, P.; Argüelles, J.; Fatjó, J. The effects of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets, and the human-animal bond. J. Vet. Behav. 2020, 40, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yabroff, K.R.; Troiano, R.P.; Berrigan, D. Walking the Dog: Is Pet Ownership Associated with Physical Activity in California? J. Phys. Act. Health 2008, 5, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Utz, R.L. Walking the Dog: The Effect of Pet Ownership on Human Health and Health Behaviors. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 116, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliva, J.L.; Johnston, K.L. Puppy love in the time of Corona: Dog ownership protects against loneliness for those living alone during the COVID-19 lockdown. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2020, 67, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gee, N.R.; Rodriguez, K.E.; Fine, A.H.; Trammell, J.P. Dogs supporting human health and well-being: A biopsy-chosocial approach. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 630465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, L.; Bennett, P.C. Companion-Animals’ Effectiveness in Managing Chronic Pain in Adult Community Members. Anthrozoös 2015, 28, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enders-Slegers, M.-J.; Hediger, K. Pet Ownership and Human–Animal Interaction in an Aging Population: Rewards and Challenges. Anthrozoös 2019, 32, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pet Owners | Non-Pet Owners | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic | Category | n | % | n | % |
Age | 18–30 | 102 | 45.5% | 96 | 42.9% |
31–40 | 58 | 25.9% | 71 | 31.7% | |
41–60 | 57 | 25.4% | 52 | 23.2% | |
>61 | 7 | 3.1% | 5 | 2.2% | |
Gender | Male | 88 | 39.3% | 98 | 43.8% |
Female | 136 | 60.7% | 126 | 56.3% | |
Marital Status | Married | 99 | 44.2% | 110 | 49.1% |
Single | 122 | 54.5% | 112 | 50.0% | |
Other | 3 | 1.3% | 2 | 0.9% | |
Education 1 | Pre-university | 103 | 46.0% | 83 | 37.1% |
University | 121 | 54.0% | 141 | 62.9% | |
Area | Rural | 39 | 17.4% | 35 | 15.6% |
Urban | 185 | 82.6% | 189 | 84.4% |
Outcome Variables | Pet Owners | Non-Pet Owners | f | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | |||
1 | Psychological Wellbeing | 45.35 | 10.58 | 43.28 | 9.81 | 4.60 * |
2 | Depression | 24.36 | 9.66 | 23.54 | 9.50 | 0.82 |
3 | Anxiety | 22.56 | 8.79 | 22.55 | 8.91 | 0.00 |
4 | Stress | 24.92 | 9.34 | 24.51 | 9.23 | 0.22 |
5 | Resilience | 19.09 | 3.19 | 18.87 | 3.17 | 0.53 |
6 | Coping self-efficacy | 88.93 | 16.00 | 83.88 | 18.74 | 9.42 ** |
7 | Positive emotions | 31.56 | 7.63 | 29.43 | 7.16 | 9.27 ** |
8 | Negative emotions | 24.85 | 7.95 | 25.08 | 6.98 | 0.10 |
Outcome Variables | Pets and Humans (n = 208) | Humans Only (n = 186) | SS | df | MS | F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | ||||||
1 | Psychological Wellbeing | 45.31 | 10.71 | 43.58 | 9.74 | 292.88 | 1, 392 | 292.88 | 2.78 |
2 | Depression | 24.72 | 9.77 | 22.91 | 9.22 | 320.69 | 1, 392 | 320.69 | 3.54 |
3 | Anxiety | 22.66 | 8.81 | 22.13 | 9.05 | 28.05 | 1, 392 | 28.05 | 0.35 |
4 | Stress | 25.07 | 9.30 | 24.05 | 9.47 | 100.87 | 1, 392 | 100.87 | 1.15 |
5 | Resilience | 19.11 | 3.28 | 18.99 | 3.16 | 1.31 | 1, 392 | 1.31 | 0.13 |
6 | Coping self-efficacy | 88.88 | 15.99 | 83.50 | 18.68 | 2842.57 | 1, 392 | 2842.57 | 9.49 ** |
7 | Positive emotions | 31.50 | 7.73 | 29.37 | 6.87 | 445.09 | 1, 392 | 445.09 | 8.27 ** |
8 | Negative emotions | 24.73 | 8.07 | 24.78 | 6.86 | 0.23 | 1, 392 | 0.23 | 0.00 |
Outcome Variables | Dog Owners (n = 122) | Cat Owners (n = 80) | SS | df | MS | F | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | ||||||
1 | Psychological Wellbeing | 43.80 | 10.24 | 47.94 | 11.13 | 825.82 | 1, 200 | 825.82 | 7.35 * |
2 | Depression | 23.56 | 8.37 | 25.08 | 10.84 | 111.28 | 1, 200 | 111.28 | 1.25 |
3 | Anxiety | 21.90 | 7.92 | 23.05 | 9.32 | 63.72 | 1, 200 | 63.72 | 0.88 |
4 | Stress | 23.77 | 8.28 | 25.93 | 10.40 | 224.28 | 1, 200 | 224.28 | 2.66 |
5 | Resilience | 19.11 | 2.73 | 19.28 | 3.67 | 1.37 | 1, 200 | 1.37 | 0.14 |
6 | Coping self-efficacy | 88.29 | 14.33 | 89.29 | 19.47 | 48.36 | 1, 200 | 48.36 | 0.18 |
7 | Positive emotions | 30.70 | 6.60 | 33.15 | 8.63 | 290.80 | 1, 200 | 290.80 | 5.22 * |
8 | Negative emotions | 24.86 | 7.26 | 25.15 | 8.94 | 4.05 | 1, 200 | 4.05 | 0.06 |
Outcome | Predictor | r2 | B | SE | Beta | T | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Psychological wellbeing | Age | 0.03 | 1.69 | 0.50 | 0.16 | 3.40 *** |
Area of residence | 0.02 | 3.42 | 1.28 | 0.12 | 2.68 * | ||
Pet ownership | 0.01 | −2.09 | 0.95 | −0.10 | −2.21* | ||
2 | Depression | Age | 0.05 | −2.20 | 0.46 | −0.22 | −4.75 *** |
3 | Anxiety | Age | 0.04 | −1.79 | 0.43 | −0.19 | −4.17 *** |
4 | Stress | Age | 0.03 | −1.59 | 0.45 | −0.16 | −3.50 *** |
5 | Resilience | Age | 0.06 | 0.57 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 3.24 ** |
Gender | 0.01 | −0.77 | 0.29 | −0.12 | −2.62 * | ||
Marital Status | 0.01 | −0.77 | 0.32 | −0.13 | −2.38 * | ||
6 | Coping self-efficacy | Pet ownership | 0.02 | −5.34 | 1.62 | −0.15 | −3.30 ** |
Area of residence | 0.02 | 4.98 | 2.23 | 0.11 | 2.23 * | ||
Education | 0.01 | 4.42 | 1.70 | 0.12 | 2.60 * | ||
Age | 0.01 | 2.15 | 0.86 | 0.12 | 2.50 * | ||
Gender | 0.01 | 3.40 | 1.65 | 0.10 | 2.07 * | ||
7 | Positive emotions | Pet ownership | 0.02 | −2.29 | 0.69 | −0.15 | −3.29 ** |
Education | 0.01 | 1.99 | 0.71 | 0.13 | 2.79 ** | ||
Age | 0.01 | 0.89 | 0.37 | 0.11 | 2.44 * | ||
8 | Negative emotions | Age | 0.04 | −1.13 | 0.42 | −0.15 | −2.69 * |
Marital Status | 0.01 | 1.59 | 0.78 | 0.11 | 2.05 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Grajfoner, D.; Ke, G.N.; Wong, R.M.M. The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia. Animals 2021, 11, 2689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689
Grajfoner D, Ke GN, Wong RMM. The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia. Animals. 2021; 11(9):2689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrajfoner, Dasha, Guek Nee Ke, and Rachel Mei Ming Wong. 2021. "The Effect of Pets on Human Mental Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19 Lockdown in Malaysia" Animals 11, no. 9: 2689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092689