Health

Two time-points of data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children were analyzed for children at ages 5 (n = 4242) and 7 (n = 4431) years. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) measured children's social-emotional development. Pet ownership status and type (dog, cat, other) as well as sociodemographic and other potential confounders were collected. Longitudinal panel regression models were used.

RESULTS:

Overall, 27% of children had abnormal scores on 1 or more SDQ scales. By age 7, 75% of children had pets with ownership highest in single-child households. Owning any type of pet was associated with decreased odds of abnormal scores for emotional symptoms (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99), peer problems (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), and prosocial behavior (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70), compared with non-pet owners. Dog ownership was associated with decreased odds of abnormal scores on any of the SDQ scales (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93). For children without any siblings, only the prosocial behavior scale was significantly associated with pet ownership (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07-0.66). In longitudinal models, cat-only and dog-only groups were associated with feweremotional symptoms and peer problems compared with non-pet owners.

CONCLUSIONS:

Early school age is an important period for family pet acquisition. Pets may protect children from developing social-emotional problems and should be taken into account when assessing child development and school readiness. Children without siblings may benefit most in terms of their prosocial behavior.

Author/s:

Christian, H., Mitrou, F., Cunneen, R., Zubrick, S.R.

Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?

John Bayhi — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 16:26:48 +0000

Date Added:

January 16, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Annual Review of Public Health

Publisher:

Annual Reviews

Publication Date:

March 1, 2014

Volume:

Pages:

83-103

URL:

Can we say what diet is best for health?

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351

Keywords

PMID (1):

24641555

MeSH

Dietary Carbohydrates

An evidence-based review of what we currently know about what we should be eating. It appears that Michael Pollan was right when he wrote, in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, “Eat good food, not too much, mostly vegetables.” The only thing he left out was to try to avoid highly processed food of any kind. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and amelioration of gene expression. In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit overlap substantially. There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for many reasons such studies are unlikely. In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for variations on that theme. A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary approaches. Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of yet, power; would that it were so.

Author/s:

Katz, DL, Meller, S

For Mortality, Busting the Myth of 10 000 Steps per Day

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:11:06 +0000

Date Added:

July 25, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association

Publisher:

The American Medical Association

Publication Date:

July 24, 2019

URL:

For Mortality, Busting the Myth of 10 000 Steps per Day

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2019.10042

Keywords

For patients who are counting their daily steps, this new information suggests that 7,500 may be enough. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

When it comes to living longer, reaching the oft-repeated goal of 10 000 steps per day may not be necessary. Older women who walked more than their peers had lower death rates in a recent observational study in JAMA Internal Medicine, and the mortality benefit was seen with as few as 4400 steps.

Author/s:

Abbasi, J.

Health

Pets Are Associated with Fewer Peer Problems and Emotional Symptoms, and Better Prosocial Behavior: Findings from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children

Can We Say What Diet Is Best for Health?

For Mortality, Busting the Myth of 10 000 Steps per Day

For Mortality, Busting the Myth of 10 000 Steps per Day