--- topic: "Pet Ownership and Health" title: "Do Pets Make You Healthier?" order: 1 description: "What research says about pets and your heart, activity, mood and kids' allergies, plus infection, allergy and flea-treatment chemical risks." question: "Does having a pet make you healthier?" answer: "It may, especially for dog owners who walk more, but cause is unproven and pets also bring infection, allergy and bite risks." actions: - "If you have a dog, walk it: dog owners had about four times the odds of meeting the 150-minute weekly activity guideline in a UK community survey [2]." - "Get a pet for companionship and years of care, not to protect your heart; the American Heart Association advises against acquiring one mainly for that reason [5]." - "Follow flea and tick labels exactly, wash hands after handling a treated pet, and ask your vet which product suits children's homes; more contact meant higher urinary pesticide levels [6]." cautions: - "Pregnant, immunocompromised or with very young children: ask your doctor and vet about pet infections; sleeping with pets, face and wound licking, bites and exotic pets raise risk [4]." - "Allergy or asthma at home: see an allergist before getting a pet; pet-dander allergy has grown more common over six decades, and 'hypoallergenic' breeds are a persistent misconception [7]." - "Pregnancy, children: an analysis linked some flea and tick products to lower developmental scores in autism but used reported exposures and cannot show cause [8]; ask a doctor if worried." confidence: 2 confidenceNote: "Large cohorts and meta-analyses disagree, healthier people may be the ones who get pets, and the randomized trial cited here had only 48 people." evidenceSummary: rctCount: 1 observationalCount: 4 metaAnalysisCount: 3 totalParticipants: "3,800,000+" replicated: false newestStudyYear: 2026 references: - id: "1" pmid: "31592726" title: "Dog Ownership and Survival: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" authors: "Kramer CK, Mehmood S, Suen RS" year: 2019 journal: "Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes" - id: "2" pmid: "31000795" title: "Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: An investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community" authors: "Westgarth C, Christley RM, Jewell C, et al." year: 2019 journal: "Sci Rep" - id: "3" pmid: "31815850" title: "Association between pet ownership and cardiovascular risks and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis" authors: "El-Qushayri AE, Kamel AMA, Faraj HA, et al." year: 2020 journal: "J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)" - id: "4" pmid: "32471058" title: "A One Health Perspective on the Human-Companion Animal Relationship with Emphasis on Zoonotic Aspects" authors: "Overgaauw PAM, Vinke CM, Hagen MAEV, et al." year: 2020 journal: "Int J Environ Res Public Health" - id: "5" pmid: "23661721" title: "Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association" authors: "Levine GN, Allen K, Braun LT, et al." year: 2013 journal: "Circulation" - id: "6" pmid: "42247999" title: "A human biomonitoring study evaluating exposure to imidacloprid among pet owners following the use of ectoparasite treatments" authors: "Doherty DM, Lee S, Wrobel SA, et al." year: 2026 journal: "Environ Int" - id: "7" pmid: "20374569" title: "Human allergy to environmental pet danders: a public health perspective" authors: "Morris DO" year: 2010 journal: "Vet Dermatol" - id: "8" pmid: "40724214" title: "Pet Flea and Tick Control Exposure During Pregnancy and Early Life Associated with Decreased Cognitive and Adaptive Behaviors in Children with Developmental Delay and Autism Spectrum Disorder" authors: "Goodrich AJ, Tancredi DJ, Ludeña YJ, et al." year: 2025 journal: "Int J Environ Res Public Health" - id: "9" pmid: "11641292" title: "Pet ownership, but not ace inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to mental stress" authors: "Allen K, Shykoff BE, Izzo JL Jr" year: 2001 journal: "Hypertension" - id: "10" pmid: "29402247" title: "The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence" authors: "Brooks HL, Rushton K, Lovell K, et al." year: 2018 journal: "BMC Psychiatry" - id: "11" pmid: "26523822" title: "Early Exposure to Dogs and Farm Animals and the Risk of Childhood Asthma" authors: "Fall T, Lundholm C, Örtqvist AK, et al." year: 2015 journal: "JAMA Pediatr" - id: "12" pmid: "22952649" title: "Does pet ownership in infancy lead to asthma or allergy at school age? Pooled analysis of individual participant data from 11 European birth cohorts" authors: "Lødrup Carlsen KC, Roll S, Carlsen KH, et al." year: 2012 journal: "PLoS One" --- Pets may be good for you, but the proof is weaker than the headlines. A pooled analysis of ten large studies linked dog ownership to a lower risk of death, though it did not adjust for who chooses to own a dog [1], and dog owners walk more [2]. Another meta-analysis found no clear survival benefit for dog owners [3]. Pets also bring infection, allergy, bite and chemical risks [4]. ## How it works ### Your heart and lifespan The American Heart Association reviewed the evidence in 2013 and concluded that owning a pet, especially a dog, is probably linked to lower cardiovascular risk, but advised against getting a pet mainly for that purpose [5]. A pooled analysis of 10 observational studies covering 3.8 million people found that dog owners had a 24% lower risk of death over about 10 years and a 31% lower risk of cardiovascular death [1]. Not every analysis agrees: a meta-analysis of 26 studies found lower cardiovascular death among pet owners overall and among cat owners, but no significant survival link for dog owners specifically [3]. ### Why a pet might help Dogs get people moving. In a UK survey, dog owners had about four times the odds of meeting the 150-minute weekly activity guideline [2]. Pets may also act as non-judging social support: in a small randomized trial of 48 adults with high blood pressure, those given a pet had smaller blood pressure and heart-rate surges under mental stress [9]. For people living with mental health conditions, a systematic review of 17 studies found mixed numbers but many accounts of pets helping them cope, alongside the burden of care and the grief of losing a pet [10]. ### Children and allergies Dogs and farm animals in a child's first year were linked to less asthma in a Swedish registry of over a million children [11], but a pooled analysis of 11 birth cohorts found no clear effect of early pets on asthma or allergy and advised against getting or avoiding pets for prevention [12]. See [Too Clean? The Hygiene Hypothesis](/hygiene-hypothesis/too-clean-the-hygiene-hypothesis). ### The costs Pets can pass infections to people, especially when people sleep with them, let them lick faces or wounds, or keep exotic animals, and bites happen [4]. Allergy to pet dander has become more common, and claims that a breed is hypoallergenic are a misconception [7]. ### Flea and tick treatments Treatments applied to a pet can reach people. In 67 Irish pet owners, urinary levels of the insecticide imidacloprid and its breakdown products rose after a pet was treated, were higher in people who handled the pet more, and stayed below the acceptable daily intake [6]. One 2025 analysis linked some flea and tick soaps, shampoos and powders to lower developmental scores in children with autism, but it relied on reported rather than measured exposures and cannot show cause [8]. The aim is careful, label-directed use and a conversation with your vet, not skipping parasite control. ## The evidence in detail ### Dog ownership and survival Kramer and colleagues searched Embase and PubMed through May 2019 for observational studies and pooled 10 of them: 3,837,005 participants, 530,515 events and a mean follow-up of 10.1 years [1]. Dog owners had a 24% lower risk of all-cause death (relative risk 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86) and a 31% lower risk of cardiovascular death (0.69, 0.67-0.71) [1]. In people with a prior coronary event the relative risk was 0.35 (0.17-0.69) [1]. The authors note the analyses were not adjusted for confounders, so healthier, wealthier or more active people may simply be more likely to own dogs. ### A meta-analysis that disagrees El-Qushayri and colleagues pooled 26 studies from nine databases [3]. Pet owners had lower cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97), and cat owners had lower cardiovascular mortality (0.79, 0.63-0.99) but not lower overall mortality (1.04, 0.90-1.21) [3]. For dog owners specifically, no significant association with overall or cardiovascular mortality was found [3]. Pet owners had a slightly lower heart rate (mean difference -2.32 beats per minute) and systolic blood pressure (-1.69 mm Hg) but no difference in hypertension prevalence [3]. The two meta-analyses disagree about dogs, which is a reason for caution. ### A small randomized trial Allen and colleagues randomized 48 people with high blood pressure to receive a pet in addition to the drug lisinopril (20 mg a day) or lisinopril alone [9]. The drug lowered resting blood pressure by about 35/20 mm Hg in both groups, but responses to mental stress were lower in pet owners: systolic pressure 131 versus 141 mm Hg, diastolic 92 versus 100, and heart rate 81 versus 91 beats per minute (P<0.0001) [9]. Limitations: a small, 2001 study of short laboratory stress tests, not heart attacks or deaths. ### Activity and mood In West Cheshire, UK, a survey of 191 dog-owning and 455 non-owning adults, plus 46 children, in 385 households found that dog owners had higher odds of recreational walking (odds ratio 14.35, 95% CI 5.77-35.79) and of meeting the 150-minute guideline (4.10, 2.05-8.19), while other activity did not differ [2]. Only 28 adults wore accelerometers, and the design is cross-sectional, so it cannot show that dogs cause more activity [2]. For people living with mental health conditions, a systematic review of 17 studies found positive, negative and neutral results in the quantitative studies, while qualitative studies described meaningful support alongside practical and emotional burdens and the distress of losing a pet [10]. ### Children In a Swedish registry of 1,011,051 children, dog contact in the first year was linked to less asthma at age 6 (odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.93) [11]. A pooled analysis of 11 birth cohorts found no association between early pets and asthma at age 6-10: odds ratio 1.00 (0.78-1.28) for cats and 0.77 (0.58-1.03) for dogs [12]. ### Infection, allergy and bites A One Health review concluded that pets undoubtedly benefit human health but may raise the risk of zoonotic infection through sleeping with pets, face and wound licking, bite accidents, exotic animals, imported rescue dogs and soil contact [4]. A review of pet-dander allergy describes rapid growth in prevalence over six decades and notes that breed-based hypoallergenic claims persist as a misconception [7]. ### Flea and tick products In a biomonitoring study, 67 participants in Irish households that applied imidacloprid-based treatments to pets gave first-morning urine for five days, 335 samples in all [6]. Detection of the metabolite imidacloprid-olefin rose from 26% before treatment to over 74% after. Levels were markedly higher in people with more physical contact with the treated pet and in those who used larger amounts, all stayed below the acceptable daily intake, and they had not fallen after five days [6]. Limitations: five days of sampling and no health outcomes. An analysis of the CHARGE study included children aged 24-60 months (810 with autism, 192 with developmental delay, 531 typically developing) with reported insecticide exposures from three months before conception to age two [8]. Flea and tick soaps, shampoos and powders used in year two were associated with lower cognitive and adaptive scores in the autism group after correction for multiple testing; skin treatments in early pregnancy were associated with lower scores in the developmental-delay group but not after correction, and typically developing children showed no association [8]. Limitations: exposure was reported rather than measured, the children already had diagnoses, and confounding is possible, so the result cannot show that these products caused any difference. ### Bottom line (confidence 2 of 5) Dog owners probably walk more, and there are intriguing links with longer life and calmer stress responses. But the large analyses disagree, who gets a pet is not random, and the randomized trial is tiny. The infection, allergy, bite and pesticide risks are manageable but real. Treat a pet as a long commitment worth making for its own sake.