| Literature DB >> 29618335 |
Yung Liao1, Pin-Hsuan Huang2, Yi-Ling Chen2, Ming-Chun Hsueh3, Shao-Hsi Chang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the prevalence of dog ownership and dog walking and its association with leisure-time walking among metropolitan and nonmetropolitan older adults.Entities:
Keywords: Dog ownership; Dog walking; Older adult; Taiwanese; Walking
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29618335 PMCID: PMC5885376 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0772-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Characteristics of the respondents, according to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas
| Characteristics | Total | Metropolitan area | Non-Metropolitan area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) 1074 (100%) | N (%) 526 (49.0%) | N (%) 548 (51.0%) | ||
| Age, mean (SD) | 72.51 (6.2) | 72.26 (6.23) | 72.74 (6.25) | |
| Population density | 650.16 | 1490.04 | 288.06 | |
| Gender | 0.003* | |||
| Male | 50.3% | 45.6% | 54.7% | |
| Female | 49.7% | 54.4% | 45.3% | |
| Age | .578 | |||
| 65–74 | 65.2% | 66.7% | 63.7% | |
| 75–84 | 28.7% | 27.4% | 29.9% | |
| 85+ | 6.1% | 5.9% | 6.4% | |
| Occupational type | .276 | |||
| Full-time job | 10.1% | 9.1% | 11.1% | |
| Not full-time job | 89.9% | 90.9% | 88.9% | |
| Education | 0.010* | |||
| Not Tertiary degree | 71.5% | 67.9% | 75.0% | |
| Tertiary degree | 28.5% | 32.1% | 25.0% | |
| Marital status | .250 | |||
| Unmarried | 23.2% | 21.7% | 24.6% | |
| Married | 76.8% | 78.3% | 75.4% | |
| Living status | 0.010* | |||
| Alone | 13.6% | 10.8% | 16.2% | |
| With others | 86.4% | 89.2% | 83.8% | |
| Self-rated health status | 0.001** | |||
| Good | 80.0% | 84.0% | 76.1% | |
| Poor | 20.0% | 16.0% | 23.9% | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | .328 | |||
| Non-overweight | 58.2% | 59.7% | 56.8% | |
| Overweight/Obese | 41.8% | 40.3% | 43.2% |
SD standard deviation; min/d, minutes/day
The proportional difference in characteristics between the residents of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas was tested using χ2
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001
Dog ownership, dog-walking status, and leisure-time walking, according to metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas
| Variable | Total | Metropolitan area | Non-Metropolitan area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1074 | 526 (49.0%) | 548 (51.0%) | ||
| % of dog ownership /dog walking category | .004* | |||
| Non-dog owner | 88.0% | 90.9% | 85.2% | |
| Non-dog walker | 8.3% | 5.5% | 10.9% | |
| Dog walker | 3.7% | 3.6% | 3.8% | |
| % of dog walking in dog owners | .105 | |||
| Dog owner | ||||
| - Non-dog walker | 69.0% | 60.4% | 74.1% | |
| - Dog walker | 31.0% | 39.6% | 25.9% | |
| % of meeting 150 min of LT walking | .053 | |||
| < 150 min | 46.9% | 43.9% | 49.8% | |
| 150+ min | 53.1% | 56.1% | 50.2% | |
| Time spent in dog walking (dog walker) | 0.15 | |||
| Day/Week | 5.85 | 5.21 | 6.43 | |
| Mean | 232.13 | 182.63 | 276.90 | |
| (SD) (min/week) | (211.11) | (144.57) | (252.31) | |
| Time spent in leisure-time walking | 0.03* | |||
| Day/Week | 5.98 | 5.85 | 6.11 | |
| Mean | 218.38 | 232.14 | 205.16 | |
| (SD) (min/week) | (249.34) | (248.86) | (249.32) | |
SD standard deviation, LT leisure time
Data are expressed as number (percentage) or mean (SD)
Difference across metropolitan area categories was tested using χ2 for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables
*p < 0.05
Dog ownership and dog-walking status associated with 150 min of leisure-time walking among all respondents
| Variable | Leisure-time walking (meeting 150 min/week) | |
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Total | ||
| Non dog owners | 1.00 (Ref.) | 1.00 (Ref.) |
| Non dog walkers | 0.90 (0.58–1.39) | 1.05 (0.67–1.65) |
| Dog walkers | 1.86 (0.95–3.66) | 1.84 (0.92–3.65) |
| Non-Metropolitan area | ||
| Non dog owners | 1.00 (Ref.) | 1.00 (Ref.) |
| Non dog walkers | 1.03 (0.60–1.77) | 1.10 (0.63–1.93) |
| Dog walkers | 3.21 (1.16–8.95)* | 3.03 (1.05–8.77)* |
| Metropolitan area | ||
| Non dog owners | 1.00 (Ref.) | 1.00 (Ref.) |
| Non dog walkers | 0.79 (0.37–1.68) | 0.91 (0.41–1.99) |
| Dog walkers | 1.10 (0.43–2.80) | 1.12 (0.43–2.91) |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Model 1 is adjusted for gender and age
Model 2 is adjusted for gender, age, city of residence, education level, type of occupation, marital status, living status, BMI, and self-rated health status
*p < 0.05