Health and Benefits of Dog Companionship in Women over 50 Years Old

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for manuscript jal-2673097 

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?           

I find the introduction section interesting, and that the content presented is relevant to the topic/results presented. However, I suggest that the authors contextualize more their study with respect to empirical research within the aging context and how their study fits within this field.

1.     Aims and scope of journal: I find that the fit between the aging component of the journal and the study could be improved. Since the mean age of the participants is 61±7 years old (dog owners) and 58±6 years old (non-dog owners), the study could be considered relevant for an older adult population (vs adults, for example). However, the authors could clarify the link between the study’s population of women over 50 and women more commonly considered “older adults” by instances like the World Health Organization (i.e. usually people over 60-65 years old). For example, the authors could briefly explain how the cutoff age of 50 years old was chosen and its relevance (e.g., present similarities between their target population and people over 60-65 years old or perhaps considering the angle of postmenopausal women could be helpful in this sense).

2.     The authors present information about canine sports and its impacts on physical and mental health of humans. I find that there is quite some emphasis on this content in the introduction and less about the relevance of this practice for the aging population. I understand that women over 40 practice canine sports. However, what about women at a later stage in life? Because of this, I find it difficult to get a sense of how this study fits into the greater scope of the journal. However, to my knowledge, referring to canine sports is a novel approach when researching the relationship between dogs and older adults and it could be very interesting to explore this topic for healthy aging. Therefore, I think this article has a lot of potential. If the authors connected more their research with current literature on older adults, dogs and the relationship with health and aging, their contribution to field would be clearer.  

3.     The study’s outcomes include life satisfaction and motivation. Although studies about the impact of dogs on depression and anxiety are presented in the introduction, studies presenting findings about life satisfaction and motivation do not seem to be presented. I suggest that authors consider presenting relevant studies related to these outcomes in the introduction section, so that readers understand the relevance of the outcomes explored in their study. For example, some studies suggest that companion animals add a sense of purpose, motivation, and structure in the daily lives of older adults.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?      

·       Most of the cited references are relevant. However, I suggested some references be added to support certain claims (see comments directly in the PDF manuscript).  

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?   

·       Research design and aim:

o   The approach used is mentioned at the end of the introduction section (“our approach was an online questionnaire and in-person testing”). However, I find that introducing the design in the methods section rather than in the introduction would improve the readability and clarity of this section. The authors could also specify for which participants the methods were used (e.g. an online survey was used for X population, in-person testing for dog owners who were local and assessment of dogs’ health with questionnaires).

o   The authors’ aim is “ to investigate the impact of dog ownership on overall health and wellness of women over 50. Our approach was an online questionnaire and in-person testing. We hypothesized that dog owners would have better health, walk more, and have a higher satisfaction with life and have better physical fitness than women that did not own a dog. In addition, we hypothesized that women that participated in canine sports would have the highest health, physical activity, fitness, and life satisfaction.” As I understand it, the aims are focused on outcomes related to humans.

§  However, in the methods and results section, the authors present tools and data related to the dogs, which don’t seem to be present in their objectives and hypotheses. I find this to be an important contribution to research about humans and companion animals because it considers the animals’ perspectives. However, could the authors clarify or adjust this aspect to align the sections between them (e.g. add the perspective of the dogs in the aims)?

·       Methods:

o   The methods used in the study are presented. However, I suggest that the authors consider reorganizing the way in which they present the tools. I find that this could improve the clarity of the section. For example, the authors could identify in the subtitles which assessments were used for people living with dogs, people living without dogs and which methods were for the dogs themselves.

o   I understand that participants were recruited via social media and that some participants were local, while others were not. However, little detail is provided about the recruitment strategy and where the participants are from: was there a target country or population for the study, other than women over 50? How were the social media groups chosen for the recruitment (e.g. canine sports groups, groups specific for women)? I invite the authors to add some more information about this aspect.

o   The assessment tools are presented and mostly well explained. For some of them, I suggested that the authors add some information like the brand of the instrument or specify briefly what the tools assess (see comments in pdf).

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?                                  

Although I find the discussion interesting, I think that the authors could improve this section by better articulating how their findings are related to the studies presented, nuancing their findings or offering hypotheses to explain their findings if different from other studies. It would help to understand how their findings contribute to the field of aging/gerontology and contextualize them (see pdf for suggestions).

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

·       I find the results section should be improved to present the results in a clearer way: the results that refer to humans vs dogs could be stated clearly, for example by adding subtitles or categorizing (e.g., results for women, results for dogs).

·       Authors could also present the dog owner demographics with a table, which would be easier for the reader to process (line 182 to 191).

·       Otherwise, I find the results interesting and have added suggestions directly in the pdf.

Is the article adequately referenced?                     

·       See pdf for comments.                     

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?           

·       In the discussion section, the authors mentioned other publications, which I find appropriate to support their claims. However, in my opinion the relevance of those studies and the links with the authors' findings could be better highlighted. This would help to understand the significance of the authors’ research and how it fits into the current body of knowledge.

·       A hypothesis of the study was that women who participate in canine sports would have better outcomes than women who don’t participate in these sports. The findings do not seem to support this hypothesis, but the authors do not seem to develop further about this finding of offer any hypotheses. As there seems to be a focus on canine sports in the introduction and it is mentioned in the hypothesis, I would find it interesting if the authors could give more space to this topic in their discussion. What could explain this finding, do other studies support it or do findings from other studies differ?  

·       Line 314-315: authors compare their findings to a study from Diener et al. (1985). This study seems to refer to older adults over age 75 and not specifically for people who live with pets. I suggest authors mention this when comparing their findings to that study or reconsider referencing it (see pdf for comment).

·       In line 326-327, authors compare their findings with findings from a study with nursing students. I invite the authors to explain how these results relate their study, which was done with women over 50.

I have added further suggestions directly in the pdf document, as well as providing some general comment to the author.

If deemed appropriate by the Editor, perhaps the authors could add some strengths of their study (e.g. considering the health of the dog).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I find the quality of the language is good overall. I added some suggestions directly in the pdf. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is clearly outside my core competence as a behavioural biologist. However I would like to make some recommendations to make it more clearly understandable and useful for us dog scientists and other people in the human-pet-relationship area:

Please put the questionnaire (blanco) into a supplement

- please explain what a chair-stand test is. Are they standing up and sitting down, or stepping onto and down from a chair??

- did you get approval from an ethics committee or could that be waived and wehy??

- the results could have more impact if you could correlate some aspects with the results from the scores, instead of just comparing groups ( eg is there a correlation betwenn certain scores with age, BMI, or the fitness tests?

-please avoid the term "owner". Caregiver, Holder, etc is more apprpriate for a relationship between two sentient beings

- some dog-related aspects should, if possible, be differentiated or at least discussed as possible influences:  body size, age, breed etc.

- areound line 260 ff the role of the oxytocine system should be referred to

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There is just one ( line 335) case of "owner" being tetained. Please try to change this

as to the rest of the article, the authors successfully addressed, in my opinion, what I suggested.

thanks

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comment, we appreciate it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please find authors' responses on your comments and suggention in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf