Research Article
Associations of Pet Ownership with Older Adults Eating
Patterns and Health

Roschelle Heuberger

Department of Human Environmental Studies, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Roschelle Heuberger; heube1ra@cmich.edu

Received 6 February 2017; Revised 26 March 2017; Accepted 4 April 2017; Published 29 May 2017

Academic Editor: Fulvio Lauretani

Copyright © 2017 Roschelle Heuberger. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Pet ownership has been shown to improve quality of life for older adults. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to compare
older pet owners and older non-pet owners and assess differences between groups. This study was conducted on adults over 50
years of age, who owned either one cat or one dog versus nonowners based on age, race, gender, and education. Matched older pet
owners (OPO) versus non-pet owners (NPO) pairs (𝑛 = 84), older cat owners (OCO) versus non-cat owners (NCO) (𝑛 = 29), and
older dog owners (ODO) versus non-dog owners (NDO) pairs (𝑛 = 55) were analyzed. No differences were found between OPO
and NPO for dietary, activity, or lifestyle, except OPO had fewer health conditions [𝑝 < 0.03]. Total OCO had greater body mass
indices [BMI] (𝜇 = 29.6 ± 8.2) than ODO (𝜇 = 23.2 ± 5.2) [𝑝 < 0.02], less activity [𝑝 < 0.02], and shorter duration of activity
[𝑝< 0.05] and took fewer supplements [𝑝< 0.003]. OCO and NCO differed on health conditions (𝜇= 0.8±0.9versus𝜇= 1.9±1.3,
[𝑝 < 0.008]) and ODO versus NDO differed on BMI (𝜇 = 25±4 versus𝜇 = 27±6, [𝑝 < 0.04]). Although there are limitations to
this study, data may be useful for targeting marketing and health messages to older persons.

1. Introduction

Pet ownership is alleged to have beneficial effects on health in
older adults [1]; therefore, a study of community dwelling, ill,
and debilitated elderly adults was conducted. Pet ownership
was evaluated against measures of health in the Netherlands.
In a cross-sectional analysis of 12,297 older adults in the
Netherlands, 2358 were pet owners. Older adults who owned
a dog showed significantly (𝑝 < 0.001) increased activity
and socialization. Older adults who owned a cat showed
decreased activity and socialization [2]. In a study of Scandi-
navians older adults who owned a dog showed overall better
health and health related behaviors when compared to older
adult non-pet owners and cat owners. Cat ownership was
associated with higher blood pressure, worse health status,
and less physical activity when compared to older adult non-
cat owners (𝑝< 0.001) [3].

Dog ownership has been studied and found to increase
activity among older adults across all seasons. Authors advo-
cated for policies and programs that encourage walking in
geographic areas with harsh seasons using dog friendly parks
and neighborhoods and providing support and education to

owners [4]. Pet ownership among older adults has also been
associated with the use of mental health care, but associations
with loneliness or social interactions as a result of having a pet
were not found [2]. Human-animal bonds are also a factor
but are difficult to measure and can impact quality of life for
both the owner and the pet [5]. An “ideal” dog or an educated
owner that has realistic expectations of the dog increases
owner satisfaction and thus quality of life [6]. Companion
animal ownership or interaction has been associated with
improving feelings of “wellbeing” among those with illnesses,
such as HIV, long term mental illness, congestive heart failure,
diabetes, end stage cancer, acute illness, chronic pain, depres-
sion, posttraumatic stress disorder, and physical disability [6–
18]. However, many studies found clinical benefit, but not
necessarily strong statistical significance, possibly due to the
complex nature of measuring “wellbeing” and the difficulty in
sampling and design in these types of studies.

In recent years, several investigators studied the attach-
ment of people to pets and used “relational” constructs to
evaluate the effects of pet ownership and the human-animal
bond on overall social satisfaction and healthy aging para-
digms. Pet ownership was found to be a positive influence on

Hindawi
Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research
Volume 2017, Article ID 9417350, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9417350

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9417350


2 Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research

relationship satisfaction, empathy, social attitude, socializa-
tion, and companionship and had postulated direct effects on
health, such as increasing serum levels of neurotransmitters
and hormones and overriding nociception, attenuating sen-
sory deficits, and decreasing the hemodynamic changes that
occur from the stress response [19–30]. In addition, increased
ambulation, physical activity (through dog walking), has
been found to increase measures of cardiovascular compe-
tence, promote health aging, increase one’s ability to age in
place, and attenuate decrements in performing activities of
daily living associated with increasing age [31–36]. Obesity,
particularly central adiposity with concomitant loss of muscle
and muscle function through infiltration of adipocytes into
skeletal and cardiac muscle, has serious implications for
morbidity and mortality in older persons. Physical activity
through dog walking has also implications for the attenuation
of age related sarcopenic obesity, disability, and obesity in
general [37–39]. In a cross-sectional study conducted by Utz
of 2,474 participants, pet ownership and overall health out-
comes were assessed and analyzed. The findings of this study
showed that older adults who owned a pet were in overall
better health condition. Older adults who owned a pet had
less arthritis, healthier weights, and decreased occurrences of
congestive heart failure. One of the detriments to owning a
pet was that older adults with pets did have increased allergies
and asthma. This study emphasizes that pet ownership results
in improved overall health [40].

There has also been some data to suggest that dementia
patients may benefit from pet assisted therapies, and phys-
ical activity, nutrition, agitation, reminiscing, and increased
socialization were potentially significant outcomes [41, 42].
In a 2015 study by Freidmann et al., cognitively impaired
residents (𝑛 = 22) were randomized to 60 or 90 minutes of
pet assisted therapy and statistically significant improvements
were seen in physical, behavioral, and emotional function
[43]. Similarly, in a study by Richeson, dementia patients (𝑛 =
15) who were assigned to an animal assisted therapy protocol
showed decrease in agitation and greater social interactions
(𝑝 < 0.001) from baseline [44]. Additionally research has
found benefits to persons with dementia with both a robotic
and a live dog. This has implications for offsetting the con-
cerns of physical safety, zoonotic infection transmission from
animal to human, and damage to property or environment,
which is often cited as a rationale for restricting pet therapy in
this population [45]. Further research into the cost benefit of
pet ownership among older persons is required, but it appears
that the benefits may outweigh the risks [46, 47].

The rural United States (US) has a greater proportion of
older adults who are impoverished and exhibit greater rates of
disease and disability than all other areas of the US. According
to the US census, the US Centers for Disease Control and the
US National Center for Health Statistics, there are more over-
weight and obese older persons in parts of the rural US [48].
The National Health Interview data and the Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System datasets have shown that a great
number of older adults are impaired, are physically inactive,
and meet the criteria for disability.

This study was conducted to assess older adults who
reside in rural areas of the US, where insufficient descriptive

data exist for the relationship between pet ownership and diet,
activity, and lifestyle characteristics of the owner as well as the
characteristics of their companion animals. The hypotheses
included that older dog or cat owners would differ from one
another or nonowners with regard to body mass index and
select dietary intake variables, number of physician diag-
nosed diseases, and prescribed medications, related to being
an older adult dog owner versus having a cat or being a non-
pet owner.

2. Materials and Methods

This cross-sectional, unincentivized, convenient investiga-
tion was done to evaluate associations of pet ownership to
health and weight status of older adult owners. “This study
was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the
Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human
subjects were approved by the Institutional Review Board
and Human Subjects Committee of the primary institution
where the research was conducted and informed consent
was obtained from all subjects.” In addition, the work which
involved analysis of secondary data on animals was approved
by the above-mentioned board. All data was rendered anony-
mous and the use of ID number only in data entry, cleaning,
coding, analysis, and dissemination was employed. Data were
kept confidential in a secure location and were made available
only to authorized researchers at the primary institution
granting approval for the study.

2.1. Data. Data were not associated with any identifying
information and subject confidentiality was maintained.
Trained interviewers (𝑛 = 7), with interrater reliability ratings
of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89, solicited pet owner participants
from organizations known to be frequented by older adults
and pet owners, using flyers, word of mouth, and ads (e.g.,
Senior Centers, Kiwanis, Red Hats, Pet Care Centers, Clinics,
Kennel Clubs, and Guilds). Exclusion criteria consisted of the
following: being <18 years of age, being unable to provide
informed consent, inability to care for self or cat/dog, having
>1 cat or dog/household, refusal to answer>25% of questions,
or failure to reside in a rural US locale. Data were split by age
>50 years, using this established cut point of the American
Association of Retired Persons.

Persons who were not pet owners were continuously
recruited until a match was found to a pet owner. Matching
was based on age, gender, race, and education. Anyone
wanting to participate in the study was allowed to do so, but
persons under the age of 50 were excluded from the analyses.

Questionnaires were piloted and focus group input was
used to adjust the questions in the questionnaire. Sequential
focus group information was used to hone internal validity.
Body Condition Scoring Charts (BCS) for pets that had a
nine-point scoring system that were available without copy-
right were used. Scale weight was obtained when available;
otherwise owner weights were self-reported, as were the data
from non-pet owners. Food intake data was gathered from
semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires. Data on
exercise was collected using frequency, duration, and inten-
sity scales, with respondent walking for exercise specifically



Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 3

Comparison between matched cat and dog owners

28.6 27.3

24.9

26.9

∗∗

∗∗

∗∗

∗∗∗∗∗ ∗

Non-dog ownerDog ownerCat owner Non-cat owner

0.8
1.3

1.9 1.9 1.8
2.2

0.8
0.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.6

§ §

BMI
Diagnoses

Medications
OTC supplements

nonowners > 50 years of ageand

Figure 1: Characteristics of older pet owners versus matched nonowners>50 years residing in the rural United States (𝑁=168). ∗𝑝< 0.01,
∗∗𝑝< 0.05, and §𝑝< 0.004.

excluding dog walking. Dog walking data was collected in the
section devoted to the animal and its care.

2.2. Statistical Analysis. Statistical analyses were run using
SPSS� v. 23, IBM Corporation, Raleigh-Durham, NC, USA,
under license from Central Michigan University, Mount
Pleasant, MI 48859. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies
and means, independent sample 𝑡-tests between matched
owner to nonowner pairs, Chi square analysis for older own-
ers and nonowners, and nonparametric statistics for data that
were not normally distributed (such as semiquantitative food
frequency intake data) were run. Analyses were run on all
data with split analyses done by gender. Logistic regression
models were run stepwise. Significance was determined by a
𝑝 value of <0.05 for all tests. Trend was determined by a 𝑝
value set at<0.075. Failure to reach statistical significance was
denoted by NS.

3. Results

3.1. Older Owners versus Older Nonowners. Split analyses
resulted in matched older pet owners (OPO) versus non-pet
owners (NPO) usable pairs (𝑛 = 84), cat owners (OCO)
versus non-cat owners (NCO) pairs (𝑛 = 29), and dog owners
(ODO) versus non-dog owners (NDO) pairs (𝑛 = 55). No sig-
nificant differences were found between total OPO and NPO
for dietary intake, physical activity, or lifestyle characteristics,
with exception of OPO having fewer numbers of documented
health conditions, despite being matched for demographics
using 𝑡-testing. There were differences between OCO versus
NCO and ODO versus NDO on prescribed medication
number and BMI (Figure 1). Older pet owners did differ from

older non-pet owners on other health related characteristics
within groups.

Logistic regressions were run on all age matched owners
and nonowners. Regression models showed that the largest
contribution to variance in the number of physician diag-
nosed owner health conditions was pet ownership (Table 1).
An increase in BMI was also related to number of owner diag-
noses in the sample, and a trend was observed for increased
intake of added fat. No other variables, either dietary or life-
style, contributed significantly to the models.

To investigate contributions by gender, the data were split
and analyzed; significant contributions were seen in number
of diagnoses for males on BMI, dietary intake of added fats,
and servings of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. In
females, pet ownership was found to be significantly related
to decrease in disease number, but BMI ceased to be con-
tributory. No other dietary or lifestyle variable was found to
contribute significantly among females. It should be noted
that there were more females than males in the sample and,
thus, data from female respondents’ contributed heavily to
the findings from the total sample.

3.2. Older Dog Owners versus Older Non-Dog Owners. There
were 110 ODO and NDO over age of 50 in the sample. Mean
age was56.8±6.4years; 97% of the sample was Caucasian and
65% female. ODO versus NDO showed significant differences
between BMI, number of diagnoses, and prescribed medi-
cations using 𝑡-tests (Figure 1). The dog owners’ dogs were,
on average, 7.7 ± 4.3 years old and had been owned for𝜇 =
7.4 ± 4.3 years. The most commonly owned dog was female
(86%) and neutered (100%) and 27% were identified as pure
bred Labrador Retriever. Respondents classified their dogs by



4 Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research

Ta
bl
e
1:
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
m
od

el
so

fb
od

y
m
as
si
nd

ex
,d
ie
ta
ry
,a
nd

lif
es
ty
le
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
so

n
he
al
th

in
pe
to

w
ne
rs
an
d
m
at
ch
ed

no
no

w
ne
rs
ov
er

ag
e
of

fift
y
(𝑁
=
1
6
8
).

A
ll
ol
de
ro

w
ne
rs
ve
rs
us

m
at
ch
ed

ol
de
rn

on
ow

ne
rs

To
ta
l(
𝑁
=
1
6
8
)

M
al
es

(𝑛
=
5
0
)

Fe
m
al
es

(𝑛
=
1
1
8
)

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

O
w
ns

pe
t

−
0.
75

0.
19

−
0.
30

−
3.
9

0.
00
1
−
0.
73

0.
38

−
0.
27
−
1.9

3
0.
06

−
0.
68

0.
23

−
0.
28
−
3.
04

0.
00
3

BM
I(
kg
/m
2
)

0.
03
5

0.
02

0.
16

2.
1

0.
04

0.
08

0.
04

0.
31

2.
17

0.
04

0.
03

0.
02

0.
12

1.2
9

0.
20

‡
†
M
od
el

‡
R
=
0.
35
;R

2
=
0.
12
;A

R2
=
0.
11
;S
EE

=
1.2

‡
R
=
0.
48
;R

2
=
0.
23
;A

R2
=
0.
19
;S
EE

=
1.2

‡
R
=
0.
34
;R

2
=
0.
09
;A

R2
=
0.
08
;S
EE

=
1.2

Sm
ok
e
(p
ac
k
ye
ar
s)

0.
35

0.
29

0.
20

1.2
0.
20

0.
44

0.
51

0.
33

0.
86

0.
40

0.
91

0.
33

0.
14

0.
58

0.
60

A
lc
oh

ol
(d
ri
nk

/w
ee
k)

0.
20

0.
25

0.
15

0.
8

0.
40

0.
51

0.
55

0.
36

0.
95

0.
40

0.
30

0.
39

0.
18

0.
78

0.
40

†
M
od
el

R
=
0.
28
;R

2
=
0.
08
;A

R2
=
0.
01
;S
EE

=
1.5

R
=
0.
42
;R

2
=
0.
18
;A

R2
=
−
0.
09
;S
EE

=
1.6

R
=
0.
26
;R

2
=
0.
07
;A

R2
=
−
0.
03
;S
EE

=
1.5

4
Fr
ui
t,
ve
ge
ta
bl
e

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
01

0.
01

−
0.
06
−
0.
07

0.
50

−
0.
02

0.
02

−
0.
19
−
1.1
3

0.
30

0.
00
1

0.
01

0.
00
1

0.
00
1

1.0
0

W
ho

le
gr
ai
n

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
02

0.
02

0.
12

1.4
0.
20

0.
05

0.
02

0.
39

2.
42

0.
02

0.
01

0.
02

0.
06

0.
55

0.
60

Lo
w
fa
td

ai
ry

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
01

0.
01

−
0.
06
−
0.
60

0.
50

−
0.
04

0.
02

−
0.
23
−
1.5

0
0.
10

−
0.
01

0.
02

−
0.
04
−
0.
35

0.
70

Fa
st
fo
od

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
04

0.
15

0.
03

0.
30

0.
80

−
0.
09

0.
23

−
0.
06
−
0.
40

0.
70

0.
05

0.
19

0.
03

0.
28

0.
80

A
dd

ed
fa
t(
se
rv
in
g/
w
ee
k)

0.
20

0.
11

0.
16

1.8
3

0.
07

0.
58

0.
19

0.
44

3.
13

0.
00
3

0.
00
1

0.
13

0.
00
1
−
0.
01

0.
90

Fi
sh

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
03

0.
13

−
0.
02
−
0.
21

0.
80

−
0.
35

0.
25

−
0.
20
−
1.4

0
0.
20

0.
07

0.
15

0.
05

0.
48

0.
60

†
M
od
el

R
=
0.
21
;R

2
=
0.
04
;A

R2
=
0.
01
;S
EE

=
1.3

‡
R
=
0.
62
;R

2
=
0.
39
;A

R2
=
0.
28
;S
EE

=
1.2

R
=
0.
08
;R

2
=
0.
01
;A

R2
=
−
0.
06
;S
EE

=
1.3

O
ld
er
do
g
ow

ne
rs
ve
rs
us

m
at
ch
ed

no
n-
do
g
ow

ne
rs

To
ta
l(
𝑁
=
1
1
0
)

M
al
es

(𝑛
=
4
0
)

Fe
m
al
es

(𝑛
=
7
0
)

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

O
w
ns

pe
t

−
0.
67

0.
23

−
0.
27
−
2.
95

0.
00

4
−
0.
71

0.
37

−
0.
30
−
1.9

4
0.
06

−
0.
64

0.
29

−
0.
26
−
2.
21

0.
03

BM
I(
kg
/m
2
)

0.
06

0.
03

0.
22

2.
27

0.
03

0.
13

0.
04

0.
51

3.
48

0.
00
1

0.
06

0.
04

0.
2

1.7
0.
10

†
M
od
el

‡
R
=
0.
32
;R

2
=
0.
10
;A

R2
=
0.
09
;S
EE

=
1.2

‡
R
=
0.
30
;R

2
=
0.
09
;A

R2
=
0.
07
;S
EE

=
1.2

‡
R
=
0.
26
;R

2
=
0.
07
;A

R2
=
0.
05
;S
EE

=
1.2

Sm
ok
e
(p
ac
k
ye
ar
s)

0.
89

0.
42

0.
48

2.
1

0.
06

0.
19

0.
26

0.
46

0.
72

0.
55

1.3
0.
60

0.
59

2.
17

0.
06

A
lc
oh

ol
(d
ri
nk

/w
ee
k)

0.
38

0.
34

0.
25

1.1
0.
30

0.
13

0.
34

0.
23

0.
37

0.
75

0.
34

0.
41

0.
22

0.
82

0.
44

†
M
od
el

R
=
0.
58
;R

2
=
0.
33
;A

R2
=
0.
23
;S
EE

=
1.4

R
=
0.
47
;R

2
=
0.
22
;A

R2
=
−
0.
56
;S
EE

=
0.
56

R
=
0.
69
;R

2
=
0.
47
;A

R2
=
0.
34
;S
EE

=
1.5

0
Fr
ui
t,
ve
ge
ta
bl
e

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
01

0.
01

−
0.
12
−
0.
97

0.
30

−
0.
03

0.
02

−
0.
28
−
1.4

0
0.
17

−
0.
01

0.
02

−
0.
04
−
0.
27

0.
79



Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 5

Ta
bl
e
1:
C
on

tin
ue
d.

W
ho

le
gr
ai
n

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
02

0.
01

0.
19

1.6
9

0.
10

0.
05

0.
02

0.
46

2.
38

0.
03

0.
01

0.
02

0.
09

0.
63

0.
53

Lo
w
fa
td

ai
ry

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
01

0.
02

−
0.
06
−
0.
48

0.
60

−
0.
03

0.
03

−
0.
25
−
1.3

6
0.
18
−
0.
00
1

0.
02

−
0.
01
−
0.
06

0.
95

Fa
st
fo
od

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
03

0.
17

0.
02

0.
15

0.
90

−
0.
13

0.
24

−
0.
09
−
0.
53

0.
60

0.
03
6

0.
25

0.
02

0.
15

0.
89

A
dd

ed
fa
t(
se
rv
in
g/
w
ee
k)

0.
32

0.
14

0.
24

2.
3

0.
02

0.
51

0.
20

0.
43

2.
52

0.
02

0.
16

0.
19

0.
12

0.
87

0.
39

Fi
sh

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
02

0.
15

−
0.
02
−
0.
16

0.
87

−
0.
23

0.
26

−
0.
14
−
0.
86

0.
40

0.
02

0.
20

0.
02

0.
11

0.
91

‡
†
M
od
el

‡
R
=
0.
31
;R

2
=
0.
09
;A

R2
=
0.
03
;S
EE

=
1.3

‡
R
=
0.
63
;R

2
=
0.
40
;A

R2
=
0.
26
;S
EE

=
1.0

9
R
=
0.
14
;R

2
=
0.
02
;A

R2
=
−
0.
09
;S
EE

=
1.3

2
O
ld
er
ca
to
w
ne
rs
ve
rs
us

m
at
ch
ed

no
n-
ca
to
w
ne
rs

To
ta
l(
𝑁

=
58
)

M
al
es

(𝑛
=
12
)

Fe
m
al
es

(𝑛
=
46

)
B

SE
𝛽

t
Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

B
SE

𝛽
t

Si
g.

O
w
ns

pe
t

−
1.2

0.
30

−
0.
43
−
3.
57

0.
00
1
−
1.3

7
0.
89

−
0.
45
−
1.5

3
0.
16

−
0.
99

0.
31
6
−
0.
43
−
3.
15

0.
00
3

BM
I(
kg
/m
2
)

0.
01
3

0.
03

0.
07

0.
50

0.
62

0.
04

0.
09

0.
14

0.
40

0.
70

0.
01

0.
03

0.
05

0.
33

0.
74

‡
†
M
od
el

‡
R
=
0.
43
;R

2
=
0.
19
;A

R2
=
0.
17
;S
EE

=
1.1

R
=
0.
45
;R

2
=
0.
21
;A

R2
=
0.
12
;S
EE

=
1.4

8
‡
R
=
0.
43
;R

2
=
0.
18
;A

R2
=
0.
16
;S
EE

=
1.0

8
Sm

ok
e
(p
ac
k
ye
ar
s)

−
0.
07

0.
39

−
0.
06
−
0.
19

0.
85

0.
60

1.7
2

0.
36

0.
35

0.
79

−
0.
24

0.
42

−
0.
21
−
0.
58

0.
58

A
lc
oh

ol
(d
ri
nk

/w
ee
k)

0.
02

0.
34

0.
01

0.
04

0.
97

0.
20

1.4
0.
15

0.
14

0.
91

−
0.
17

0.
44

−
0.
14
−
0.
38

0.
71

†
M
od
el

R
=
0.
06
;R

2
=
0.
00
3;
A
R2

=
−
0.
16
;S
EE

=
1.5

R
=
0.
33
;R

2
=
0.
11
;A

R2
=
−
1.6

7;
SE

E
=
3.
13

R
=
0.
29
;R

2
=
0.
09
;A

R2
=
−
0.
14
;S
EE

=
1.2

7
Fr
ui
t,
ve
ge
ta
bl
e

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
00

4
0.
02

−
0.
05
−
0.
23

0.
82

−
0.
01

0.
07

−
0.
11
−
0.
22

0.
84

0.
00

0.
02

0.
01

0.
02

0.
98

W
ho

le
gr
ai
n

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
01

0.
03

0.
08

0.
46

0.
65

0.
95

0.
11

0.
35

0.
84

0.
47

0.
02

0.
03

0.
12

0.
62

0.
54

Lo
w
fa
td

ai
ry

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

−
0.
01

0.
03

−
0.
07
−
0.
43

0.
67

0.
14

0.
15

0.
41

0.
93

0.
42

−
0.
01

0.
03

−
0.
07
−
0.
35

0.
73

Fa
st
fo
od

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
01

0.
3

0.
01

0.
03

0.
97

−
0.
10

0.
86

−
0.
04
−
0.
11

0.
92

0.
04

0.
35

0.
02

0.
11

0.
92

A
dd

ed
fa
t(
se
rv
in
g/
w
ee
k)

0.
03

0.
21

0.
02

0.
14

0.
89

1.2
0

0.
55

0.
75

2.
17

0.
12

−
0.
24

0.
22

−
0.
20
−
1.1
0

0.
28

Fi
sh

(s
er
vi
ng

/w
ee
k)

0.
06

0.
30

0.
04

0.
20

0.
85

−
0.
86

1.0
4
−
0.
37
−
0.
82

0.
47

0.
25

0.
30

0.
16

0.
83

0.
41

†
M
od
el

R
=
0.
11
;R

2
=
0.
01
;A

R2
=
−
0.
14
;S
EE

=
1.3

9
R
=
0.
84
;R

2
=
0.
70
;A

R2
=
0.
10
;S
EE

=
1.4

9
R
=
0.
25
;R

2
=
0.
06
;A

R2
=
−
0.
13
;S
EE

=
1.3

1
†
C
on

st
an
t.
‡
St
at
is
tic

al
ly
si
gn

ifi
ca
nt

at
th
e
le
ve
lo
f�푝
<
0
.0
5
.



6 Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research

breed. Respondents were specifically asked if the dog was a
mix or pure bred, but no further investigation into lineage
was made by interviewers.

In regression models for NDO matched on age to ODO,
pet ownership contributed significantly to decreased number
of diagnosed conditions in both males and females. In males,
increased BMI was significantly related to increased number
of health conditions, but the relationship did not hold for
females. Smoking and alcohol use did not show statistical sig-
nificance in the regression models, although a trend was seen
between smoking history and increased number of diagnoses
in women. In men, dietary intake of whole grain and added
fat contributed significantly to model variance (Table 1).

3.3. Older Cat Owners versus Older Non-Cat Owners. There
were 58 OCO and NCO in this sample. Mean age of the
participants was 57.1 ± 6.2 years; 98% were Caucasian and
81% were female. Older CO and NCO differed significantly on
number of diagnosed health conditions (𝜇= 0.8±0.9versus
𝜇= 1.9±1.3, [𝑝< 0.008]) using 𝑡-tests. Older cat owners had
fewer health problems than NCO despite being matched on
available demographics (Figure 1). Their cats were on average
7.3 ± 4.6 years of age and had been owned for𝜇 = 6.1 ± 4.8
years. The most commonly owned cat was female (76%),
neutered (95%), and shorthaired (32%).

Regression models for diagnosed health conditions
among OCO and matched NCO are shown in Table 1. Own-
ing a cat was associated with fewer health problems in the
sample, but significance was only seen in females, after the
data were split by gender. There were too few males in this
sample, which reduced power to detect significance. No other
body habitus, lifestyle, or dietary intake variable was contrib-
utory in OCO and NCO with respect to number of health
conditions in regression models.

3.4. Older Dog Owners versus Older Cat Owners. Using non-
parametric testing OCO were significantly more likely to be
female than ODO (𝑝 < 0.01). Total OCO had significantly
greater body mass indices [BMI = wt.-kg/ht-m2] (𝜇 = 29.6±
8.2) than total ODO (𝜇= 23.2±5.2) [𝑝< 0.02], less physical
activity [𝑝 < 0.02], and duration of activity [𝑝 < 0.05] and
took fewer supplements [𝑝< 0.003] in 𝑡-test analyses.

Older pet owners had senior pets, and their senior pets
had veterinarian diagnosed health conditions, most com-
monly allergies (37%) and arthritis (21%) among ODO and
allergies (27%) and hyperthyroidism (15%) among OCO. The
most frequently used supplement was glucosamine for dogs
and a multivitamin for cats. The most common medications
were for pain control (22%) in dogs and hyperthyroidism in
cats.

3.5. Matched Older Cat Owners to Dog Owners to Non-
Owners. The most frequently diagnosed health conditions
among ODO, OCO, and NPO were allergies followed by
hypertension. The over-the-counter supplements used most
commonly by OCO, ODO, and NPO were multivitamins,
calcium, and fish oil/omega-3 fatty acids, in that order. Walk-
ing was the most common form of non-pet-related physical

activity reported among NPO, ODO, and OCO. Respondents
were specifically asked to separate out walking for exercise
without their dog from dog walking. Walking on a treadmill
or track, walking in the mall, and walking with a walking
group are examples of non-dog walking exercise that was clas-
sified as “walking.” To decrease confounding, all three groups
were matched for all available demographics yielding 22
usable triads (age𝜇= 55.4±4.5years). Analyses of these tri-
ads revealed no significant differences between NPO, ODO,
and OCO using 𝑡-tests for dietary intake data or lifestyle
characteristics. The decreased sample size diminished power
to detect differences among groups. Nonowners had slightly
but not significantly higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, and
whole grains, but lower or equivalent servings of low fat dairy
products. Multiple linear regressions for number of owner
diagnoses showed significant contributions of pet ownership
and BMI, but other variables were NS.

4. Discussion

Health and behaviors impacting health can be influenced by
pet ownership [49]. An example is increased activity through
dog walking [35–37, 50–52]. In this self-selected sample of pet
owners>50 years of age matched to non-pet owners on key
demographic characteristics, owning a pet was associated
with fewer health problems and less prescribed medication.
There were differences seen between cat versus dog owners
and between those groups and nonowners on variables such
as BMI, diagnoses, and health behaviors. The results point
to the inherent health benefits of pet ownership for older
adults, with dog ownership imparting greater health advan-
tages. This may be due to the increased socialization, tactile
stimulation, and psychological deterrent to loneliness that
pets provide [53–55]. It has also been shown that companion
animals may provide pain relief and stimulate oxytocin pro-
duction, which increases bonding and feeling needed, which
improves quality of life. These indicators are known to influ-
ence food consumption, eating patterns, body weight, and
body habitus, as well as food choices, meal satisfaction, and
appetite. Additionally, there are influences on neurotrans-
mission, chemokines, and inflammation as well as hormones
regulating blood pressure [56, 57].

Significant limitations to this study exist, including, but
not limited to, convenience sampling, respondent bias, lack
of generalizability to other populations, and lack of power
to detect significant differences among the matched triads,
NPO, ODO, and OCO.

Older adults owning dogs may be an inherently different
population than older cat owners; they may be more mobile,
active, and predisposed to socialization in the first place. In
addition, subjects were only included if they had one pet per
household, which is a significant limitation but was necessary
to ensure that the data collection on diet and other character-
istics were specifically for the one pet in the home. Multiple
pets would have presented problems in collecting dietary and
activity data, particularly if they were provided food ad libi-
tum. Also, older adults keeping multiple pets in advanced age
may be a very different demographic than those with a one



Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 7

pet household. Further research evaluating owning multiple
pets among those of advanced age would be beneficial.

Owner demographics, socioeconomics, body habitus,
and health are important to consider when advising older
clients or marketing to older adults for themselves or their
companion animals [58]. Older owners caring for older pets
are a research area that should be explored, given the bur-
geoning older adult population in rural areas of the United
States.

5. Conclusions

In this sample, rural, older pet owners differed from matched
nonowners of companion animals, on several variables,
including number of health conditions and BMI. Older cat
owners differed from older dog owners, with higher BMIs,
less physical activity, and less supplement usage. Older cat
owners were much more likely to be female than dog owners
and in worse condition. Differences in dietary, lifestyle, or
health related characteristics between older cat, dog, and
nonowners, when matched to one another on all available
demographics, while not statistically significant, showed that
pet ownership was indeed beneficial for older persons. Pet
ownership and BMI significantly contributed to better overall
health, using number of diagnosed conditions as a surrogate
marker. Further research in this arena is required, particularly
in light of the burgeoning older adult population and the
trend towards viewing pets as family members. Older owner
lifestyle, health practices, and care decisions may extend to
their pet. Treatment options for either the owner or the pet
should be tailored in the context of the pet as a family member
for enhanced outcomes.

Additional Points

(i) Older adult pet owners have overall better health with
regard to weight, health conditions, and fewer medications.
(ii) Older adult dog owners have better health status than
older adult cat owners. (iii) Pets help keep older adults more
physically active and decrease loneliness and physical and
cognitive decline, which improves quality of life and overall
health.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest
regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Roschelle Heuberger conceived, planned, and conducted the
analysis of the article.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge Central Michigan Univer-
sity for ancillary services provided and the graduate students
who assisted in the data collection, entry, cleaning, coding,

and analysis and would like to thank the following persons
for their contributions to either collecting, entering, cleaning,
or coding of the data: Keirsten DeWitt, Allison Corby, and
Rebecca Vander Sluis.

References

[1] G. Levine, K. Allen, L. Braun et al., “Pet ownership and cardio-
vascular risk: a scientific statement from the heart association,”
Circulation, vol. 127, no. 23, pp. 2353–2363, 2013.

[2] M. Rijken and S. van Beek, “About Cats and Dogs . reconsider-
ing the relationship between pet ownership and health related
outcomes in community-dwelling elderly,” Social Indicators
Research, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 373–388, 2011.

[3] I. Enmarker, O. Hellzén, K. Ekker, and A.-G. Berg, “Health in
older cat and dog owners: the nord-trondelag health study
(HUNT)-3 study,” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, vol.
40, no. 8, pp. 718–724, 2012.

[4] P. Lail, G. R. McCormack, and M. Rock, “Does dog-ownership
influence seasonal patterns of neighbourhood-based walking
among adults? A longitudinal study,” BMC Public Health, vol.
11, article 148, 2011.

[5] T. R. Schneider, J. B. Lyons, M. A. Tetrick, and E. E. Accortt,
“Multidimensional quality of life and human-animal bond
measures for companion dogs,” Journal of Veterinary Behavior:
Clinical Applications and Research, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 287–301,
2010.

[6] T. King, L. C. Marston, and P. C. Bennett, “Describing the ideal
Australian companion dog,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
vol. 120, no. 1-2, pp. 84–93, 2009.

[7] V. Hutton, “Companion animals and wellbeing when living with
HIV in Australia,” Anthrozoos, vol. 27, pp. 407–421, 2014.

[8] H. Brooks, K. Rushton, S. Walker et al., “Ontological secu-
rity, and connectivity provided by pets: a study in the self-
management of the everyday lives of people diagnosed with
long-term mental illness,” BMC Psychiatry, vol. 16, pp. 1–8, 2016.

[9] S. Ryan and S. Ziebland, “On interviewing people with pets:
reflections from qualitative research on people with long-term
conditions,” Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 67–
80, 2015.

[10] H. L. Brooks, A. Rogers, D. Kapadia, J. Pilgrim, D. Reeves, and
I. Vassilev, “Creature comforts: personal communities, pets and
the work of managing a long-term condition,” Chronic Illness,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 87–102, 2013.

[11] N. J. Rooney, S. Morant, and C. Guest, “Investigation into the
value of trained glycaemia alert dogs to clients with type I
diabetes,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 8, article e69921, 2013.

[12] S. R. Engelman, “Palliative care and use of animal-assisted
therapy,” Omega (United States), vol. 67, no. 1-2, pp. 63–67, 2013.

[13] S. Burres, N. E. Edwards, A. M. Beck, and E. Richards, “Incor-
porating pets into acute inpatient rehabilitation: a case study,”
Rehabilitation Nursing, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 336–341, 2016.

[14] L. Bradley and P. C. Bennett, “Companion-Animals’ effective-
ness in managing chronic pain in adult community members,”
Anthrozoos, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 635–647, 2015.

[15] S. M. Skjorestad and B. Johannessen, “The relationship between
persons with mental health problems and their dogs: a qual-
itative study within a nursing perspective,” Journal of Nursing
Education and Practice, vol. 3, pp. 130–133, 2013.

[16] I. Enmarker, O. Hellzén, K. Ekker, and A.-G. T. Berg, “Depres-
sion in older cat and dog owners: The Nord-Trøndelag Health



8 Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research

Study (HUNT)-3,” Aging and Mental Health, vol. 19, no. 4, pp.
347–352, 2015.

[17] A. L. Johnson, D. Pride, D. A. Donahue et al., “Potential bene-
fits of canine companionship for military veterans with Post-
traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),” Society and Animals, vol. 21,
no. 6, pp. 568–581, 2013.

[18] D. Silcox, Y. Castillo, and B. Reed, “The human animal bond:
applications for rehabilitation professionals,” Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, vol. 45, pp. 27–37, 2014.

[19] P. Sable, “The pet connection: an attachment perspective,”
Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 93–99, 2013.

[20] J. McNicholas, “The role of pets in the lives of older people: a
review,” Working with Older People, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 128–133,
2014.

[21] A. Cloutier and J. Peetz, “Relationships’ Best Friend: Links
between Pet Ownership, Empathy, and Romantic Relationship
Outcomes,” Anthrozoos, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 395–408, 2016.

[22] M. Mueller, R. Bures, and N. Gee, “Human animal interaction
and healthy aging,” Gerontologist, vol. 56, article 261, 2016.

[23] I. H. Stanley, Y. Conwell, C. Bowen, and K. A. Van Orden, “Pet
ownership may attenuate loneliness among older adult primary
care patients who live alone,” Aging and Mental Health, vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 394–399, 2014.

[24] L. Wood, K. Martin, H. Christian et al., “The pet factor—com-
panion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friend-
ship formation and social support,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 4,
Article ID e0122085, 2015.

[25] J. L. Bryan, M. C. Quist, C. M. Young, M.-L. N. Steers, D. W. Fos-
ter, and Q. Lu, “Canine comfort: pet affinity buffers the negative
impact of ambivalence over emotional expression on perceived
social support,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 68,
pp. 23–27, 2014.

[26] C. G. Himsworth and M. Rock, “Pet ownership, other domestic
relationships, and satisfaction with life among seniors: results
from a Canadian national survey,” Anthrozoos, vol. 26, no. 2, pp.
295–305, 2013.

[27] C. A. Krause-Parello, J. Tychowski, A. Gonzalez, and Z. Boyd,
“Human-canine interaction: exploring stress indicator response
patterns of salivary cortisol and immunoglobulin A,” Research
and Theory for Nursing Practice, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25–40, 2012.

[28] S. B. Barker, J. S. Knisely, N. L. McCain, C. M. Schubert, and A.
K. Pandurangi, “Exploratory study of Stress-Buffering response
patterns from interaction with a therapy dog,” Anthrozoos, vol.
23, no. 1, pp. 79–91, 2010.

[29] E. Cherniak and A. Cherniak, “The benefit of pets and animal-
assisted therapy to the health of older individuals,” Current
Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, vol. 2014, Article ID
623203, 9 pages, 2014.

[30] D. A. Marcus, C. D. Bernstein, J. M. Constantin, F. A. Kunkel,
P. Breuer, and R. B. Hanlon, “Animal-assisted therapy at an
outpatient pain management clinic,” Pain Medicine, vol. 13, no.
1, pp. 45–57, 2012.

[31] C. G. Byers, C. C. Wilson, M. B. Stephens, J. L. Goodie, F. E.
Netting, and C. H. Olsen, “Owners and pets exercising together:
canine response to veterinarian-prescribed physical activity,”
Anthrozoos, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 325–333, 2014.

[32] N. M. D. Antonacopoulos and T. A. Pychyl, “An examination
of the possible benefits for well-being arising from the social
interactions that occur while dog walking,” Society and Animals,
vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 459–480, 2014.

[33] D. O. Garcia, B. C. Wertheim, J. E. Manson et al., “Relationships
between dog ownership and physical activity in postmeno-
pausal women,” Preventive Medicine, vol. 70, pp. 33–38, 2015.

[34] M. Gonzalez-Ramirez and R. Landero-Hernandez, “Benefits of
dog ownership,” Journal of Veterinary Behavior, vol. 9, pp. 311–
315, 2014.

[35] K. Campbell, C. M. Smith, S. Tumilty, C. Cameron, and G. J. Tre-
harne, “How does dog-walking influence perceptions of health
and wellbeing in healthy adults? a qualitative dog-walk-along
study,” Anthrozoos, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 181–192, 2016.

[36] R. J. Thorpe Jr., E. M. Simonsick, J. S. Brach et al., “Dog owner-
ship, walking behavior, and maintained mobility in late life,”
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 54, no. 9, pp.
1419–1424, 2006.

[37] J. A. Boisvert and W. Harrell, “Dog walking: a leisurely solution
to pediatric and adult obesity,” World Leisure Journal, no. 2, pp.
168–171, 2014.

[38] S. Holt, R. A. Johnson, H. D. Yaglom, and C. Brenner, “Animal
assisted activity with older adult retirement facility residents:
the PAWSitive visits program,” Activities, Adaptation and Aging,
vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 267–279, 2015.

[39] M. Perantonaki, K. Pyrga, K. Margaritis, M. Tsigga, and M. G.
Grammatikopoulou, “Centrally obese adults walking their dogs
benefit from improved anthropometry in selected body sites,”
Obesity Medicine, vol. 3, pp. 17–19, 2016.

[40] R. L. Utz, “Walking the dog: the effect of pet ownership on
human health and health behaviors,” Social Indicators Research,
vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 327–339, 2014.

[41] N. Edwards and A. Beck, “Animal-assisted therapy and nutri-
tion in alzheimer’s disease,” Western Journal of Nursing Research,
vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 697–712, 2002.

[42] L. Nordgren and G. Engström, “Effects of dog-assisted interven-
tion on behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia,”
Nursing Older People, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 31–38, 2014.

[43] E. Friedmann, E. Galik, S. A. Thomas et al., “Evaluation of a
pet assisted living intervention for improving functional status
in assisted living residents with mild to moderate cognitive
impairment,” American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other
Dementias�, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 276–289, 2015.

[44] N. Richeson, “Effects of animal assisted therapy on agitated
behaviors and social interactions of older adults with dementia,”
The American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and other Demen-
tias, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 353–358, 2003.

[45] S. C. Kramer, E. Friedmann, and P. L. Bernstein, “Comparison
of the effect of human interaction, animal-assisted therapy,
and AIBO-assisted therapy on long-term care residents with
dementia,” Anthrozoos, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–57, 2009.

[46] K. A. Anderson, L. K. Lord, L. N. Hill, and S. McCune,
“Fostering the human-animal bond for older adults: challenges
and opportunities,” Activities, Adaptation and Aging, vol. 39, no.
1, pp. 32–42, 2015.

[47] K. Hodgson, L. Barton, M. Darling, V. Antao, F. A. Kim, and A.
Monavvari, “Pets’ impact on your patients’ health: leveraging
benefits and mitigating risk,” Journal of the American Board of
Family Medicine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 526–534, 2015.

[48] K. A. Kirtland, M. M. Zack, and C. J. Caspersen, “State-specific
synthetic estimates of health status groups among inactive
older adults with self-reported diabetes, 2000–2009,” Preventing
Chronic Disease, vol. 9, no. 4, Article ID 110221, 2012.

[49] V. I. Rohlf, P. C. Bennett, S. Toukhsati, and G. Coleman, “Beliefs
underlying dog owners’ health care behaviors: results from a



Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 9

large, self-selected, internet sample,” Anthrozoos, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 171–185, 2012.

[50] C. Hayley, L. Wood, A. Nathan, and et al, “The association
between dog walking, physical activity and owners perceptions
of safety: cross sectional evidence from the US and Australia,”
BMC Public Health, vol. 16, no. 1, article 1010, 2016.

[51] E. A. Richards, “Does dog walking predict physical activity par-
ticipation: results from a national survey,” American Journal of
Health Promotion, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 323–330, 2016.

[52] N. Campbell and D. Kim, “Designing an ageless social commu-
nity: adapting a new urbanist social core to suit baby boomers
in later life,” Journal of Housing for the Elderly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp.
156–174, 2016.

[53] J. M. Smith, “Toward a better understanding of loneliness in
community-dwelling older adults,” Journal of Psychology: Inter-
disciplinary and Applied, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 293–311, 2012.

[54] R. Jenkins and E. Williams, “Dog visitation therapy in dementia
care: a literature review,” Nursing Older People, vol. 20, no. 8, pp.
31–40, 2008.

[55] P. Martens, M.-J. Enders-Slegers, and J. K. Walker, “The emo-
tional lives of companion animals: attachment and subjective
claims by owners of cats and dogs,” Anthrozoos, vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 73–88, 2016.

[56] S. Branson, L. Boss, S. Cron, and D.-H. Kang, “Examining dif-
ferences between homebound older adult pet owners and non-
pet owners in depression, systemic inflammation, and executive
function,” Anthrozoos, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 323–334, 2016.

[57] E. Friedmann, S. A. Thomas, H. Son, D. Chapa, and S. McCune,
“Pet’s presence and owner’s blood pressures during the daily
lives of pet owners with pre- to mild hypertension,” Anthrozoos,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 535–550, 2013.

[58] C. M. Martins, A. Mohamed, A. M. S. Guimarães et al., “Impact
of demographic characteristics in pet ownership: modeling
animal count according to owners income and age,” Preventive
Veterinary Medicine, vol. 109, no. 3-4, pp. 213–218, 2013.



Submit your manuscripts at
https://www.hindawi.com

Stem Cells
International

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

MEDIATORS
INFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Behavioural 
Neurology

Endocrinology
International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

BioMed 
Research International

Oncology
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and 
Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific 
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation 
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Immunology Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Obesity
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

 Computational and  
Mathematical Methods 
in Medicine

Ophthalmology
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Diabetes Research
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Research and Treatment
AIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Gastroenterology 
Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Parkinson’s 
Disease

Evidence-Based 
Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com