Next Article in Journal
Influence of a Polyherbal Choline Source in Dogs: Body Weight Changes, Blood Metabolites, and Gene Expression
Next Article in Special Issue
Are Hair Cortisol Levels of Humans, Cats, and Dogs from the Same Household Correlated?
Previous Article in Journal
Neonatal Piglet Temperature Changes: Effect of Intraperitoneal Warm Saline Injection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Creation and Validation of a Tool for Evaluating Caregiver Burnout Syndrome in Owners of Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) Diagnosed with Behavior Disorders
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Dog’s Age and Breed on Dog Owner’s Physical Activity: A German Longitudinal Study

1
Institute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, 50933 Cologne, Germany
2
Institute of Zoology and Evolutionary Research with Phyletic Museum, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
3
Department of Clinical Studies VHUP, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 16 March 2022 / Revised: 17 May 2022 / Accepted: 19 May 2022 / Published: 20 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dog–Human Relationships: Behavior, Physiology, and Wellbeing)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Dog ownership has been linked to physical activity of the owners in several countries. Physical activity is also affected by age, size and energy level, as perceived by the owners, of the dogs. Earlier studies were mostly cross-sectional, which does not allow causal conclusions. This study aimed to find differences and changes in the physical activity behavior of owners of ten different dog breeds that were selected based on their size and energy level. Nine dog breed groups were used and owners filled out an online physical activity questionnaire once per year for three years. The results show that dog owners’ total and dog-related physical activity as well as their leisure time and dog walking decreased over time. Owners of the dog breed groups differed in all physical activity variables. If only participants who completed the study were analyzed, no changes in any physical activity variable were found. At baseline, owners of different dog breeds differed in the types of reported dog-related activities. Overall, the results indicate that physical activity behavior in dog owners is stable over time. However, no clear pattern could be found based on the age, size and energy level of the dogs.

Abstract

Dog ownership contributes positively to physical activity (PA). The impact of different dog breeds and age on PA is less investigated in longitudinal studies. This study aimed to evaluate PA changes in dog owners as their dogs’ ages increased and to explore whether there are differences in PA between owners of different breeds over a three-year period. Owners of different dog breeds were categorized into nine groups according to the perceived energy level and size of the breed. PA was monitored using an online questionnaire for three consecutive years. Linear mixed models (LMM) showed a small, but significant decrease in total PA, leisure time walking, dog-related PA and dog walking over three years. No decreases were found if only participants who attended at all time points were included. In all LMM analyses, a significant relationship between the dog breed and the outcomes of PA were shown. At baseline, dog owners performed different types of activities depending on their dog breed. In conclusion, owners of different dog breeds differ in their types of PA. The study emphasizes that age, size and energy level of the dog does not per se have an impact on dog owners PA.

1. Introduction

Recent studies have shown that dog ownership is associated with increased physical activity (PA) in Australia [1], Canada [2], the Czech Republic [3,4], Finland [5], Germany [6], Japan [7], the United Kingdom [8,9,10,11,12,13,14], South Korea [15] and the USA [16]. Dog owners have also a higher number of steps per day on average than non-dog owners [4,8]. Much of the PA of dog owners consists of dog walking [6,17,18]. Most previous studies of the relationship between dog ownership and PA were cross-sectional, and only a few longitudinal studies give information about the causal relationship between dog ownership and owners’ PA. An early study from the UK found significant increases in PA after acquiring a dog [14]. An Australian study showed that dog acquisition leads to an increase in dog walking but not total PA [19]. Two other investigations detected an initial increase in daily steps after dog acquisition that was diminished at a second follow-up period [20,21]. Therefore, it could be concluded that dog acquisition might increase PA in prospective dog owners.
Physical inactivity is associated with poor health and an increased mortality risk [22,23,24,25,26]. It has been documented that dog ownership also correlates inversely with the risk of several diseases and mortality [27] and that dog owners have a better cardiovascular condition than people who do not own any pets [3]. However, the authors of a recent meta-analysis identified only a non-significant reduction in the mortality risk for dog owners and, therefore, advocate treating these previous results with caution [28].
It has been shown that the size of a dog [29,30,31,32,33,34,35] and their owner-perceived energy level [31,36] are positively associated with dog walking. Moreover, it has been shown that the average energy levels of dogs, as perceived by their owners, vary between breeds and breed groups [37,38].
The age and the health status of the dog have also been shown to be associated with dog walking [35,36,39,40,41,42]. The probability of being walked is smaller for older dogs and dogs with a poorer health status as compared to younger and healthier dogs [35,36]. Furthermore, dog walking behavior changes as dogs develop health problems [41]. However, since the aging process of dogs of different sizes varies significantly [43], dogs of different sizes might influence dog owners PA differently with increasing age.
The aim of this study was, therefore, to investigate differences at baseline and changes over time in the PA of dog owners of different dog breeds. It was hypothesized that owners of smaller dogs with a lower energy level would be less physically active overall. It was expected that the PA of dog owners would decline over the years as the dogs aged. Furthermore, if a dog died it was expected that the PA behavior of the owner would decline, if there was no dog left in the household.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Study participants were required to be at least 18 years old and to have at least one dog of ten specified dog breeds at the time of recruitment. Participants that owned more than one of the selected breeds were categorized as a separate group. In order to achieve a sufficiently large sample, an average number of 500 puppies registered in the German subsection of the FCI (VDH) per year in the period from 2010 to 2014 [44] was used as a criterion. The dog breeds were then selected based on two criteria:
First, the dog breeds were divided into categories based on the height at the withers as specified in the Féderation Cynologique International (FCI) standard (small ≤ 40 cm; medium = 40–59 cm; large ≥ 60 cm). If the breed standard recorded a size that exceeded the defined size limits, the breed was placed in the larger category. Then, the energy level was evaluated, as measured by the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ). We used data from the C-BARQ project at the University of Pennsylvania (https://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/, assessed on 15 March 2022) to estimate the energy levels of the different breeds. Participants in the current study did not complete the C-BARQ questionnaire.
The C-BARQ is an online survey that allows owners to evaluate the behavior of individual dogs [45]. Energy level is one of 14 behavioral dimensions evaluated by the C-BARQ and it consists of two questionnaire items: “playful, puppyish, boisterous” and “active, energetic, always on the go” (Serpell and Duffy, 2014, p. 48) [37]. Both items are scored on five-point scales from 0 to 4, with a higher score indicating that the behavior is exhibited more frequently [37,46]. The score for energy level represents the average of the scores for these two items.
The selected breeds are:
1.
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (CKCS) [47] (small size, low energy)
2.
West Highland White Terrier (WHWT) [48] (small size, medium energy)
3.
Jack Russell Terrier (JRT) [49] (small size, high energy)
4.
Parson Russell Terrier (PRT) [50] (small size, high energy)
5.
Whippet (WHIP) [51] (medium size, low energy)
6.
Labrador Retriever (LAB) [52] (medium size, medium energy)
7.
Border Collie (BC) [53] (medium size, high energy)
8.
Bernese Mountain Dog (BMD) [54] (large size, low energy)
9.
Rottweiler (ROTT) [55] (large size, medium energy)
10.
Belgian Shepherd Dog (BSD) [56] (large size, high energy)
To take part in the study, participants needed to be able to understand, read and write in German. They could own a maximum of 5 dogs. Participants were excluded if they reported not owning a purebred dog of the selected breeds or if they reported that they did not complete the questionnaire accurately. Furthermore, they were excluded if they had help from another person, because this might bias the results, e.g., because of social desirability [57].
Participants were recruited using groups that focused on the selected dog breeds on social media. A description of the study was posted alongside a link that led to the online questionnaire. Permission was obtained from the group administrators before the link was posted. For each dog breed two to four groups agreed to the posting. The number of group members per group varied between 203 and 7778. Further, several sub-organizations of the German Kennel Club (VDH) that care for the welfare of the dog breeds were contacted. Some of these associations published an appeal in their club newspapers or contacted their members directly.

2.2. Measurements

A 15-min online questionnaire was used. By answering question 1 participants gave informed consent actively (see Supplementary Materials). Participants self-reported sociodemographic and anthropometric data. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from self-reported height and weight as kg/m2. Information on the age, sex, sizes (measured standing at the withers in cm), weight in kg, neuter status and breed of each dog was also provided. Participants completed the questionnaire only once per time point.
Participants also completed the Physical Activity, Exercise and Sport Questionnaire (Bewegungs- and Sportaktivitätsfragebogen [BSA-F], Version 1.0) by Fuchs et al. [58]. An English translation of the BSA-F is available for download at the University of Freiburg (https://www.sport.uni-freiburg.de/de/institut/psychologie/messinstrumente/Messung_der_Sport_und_Bewegungsaktivitaet, assessed on 15 March 2022) [59]. It measures PA in minutes per week over the previous four weeks. The BSA-F was validated by Fuchs et al. and correlates with physical fitness [58].
In addition to the BSA-F, questions were included that specifically asked about PA performed together with the dog (dog-related PA). The questions were based on the BSA-F. Participants were asked about the frequency and duration they walked their dog or rode a bicycle with their dog. Finally, they could report five other dog-related PAs in a semi-open question design. All PA related outcomes were calculated as hours per week (h/week). This approach has been used in earlier studies [6,17].

2.3. Procedure

Participants were recruited from 1 August 2017 until 31 July 2018. At baseline (T0) they completed the questionnaire. Participants were asked to create an individual code from their initials and their date of birth in order to enable the data to be assigned to the different points in time.
The questionnaires were made available on the data survey tool https://www.soscisurvey.de (assessed on 15 March 2022). Soscisurvey is a German company that complies with the German and European data protection guidelines [60].
At the first (T1), second (T3) and third (T4) year of follow-up participants received three e-mails within 20 days that reminded them to participate in the study. In addition to the BSA-F, they were asked to report any changes in dog ownership status. In particular, they were asked whether any of the dogs had died. Not completing the questionnaire at follow-up dates was interpreted as withdrawal from the study. The data collection ended two weeks after the last participant received the last reminder at T3.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Unless otherwise specified, descriptive values are reported as mean (M) ± standard deviation (SD). Outliers were identified using the mean values ± 3 SDs. Outliers outside this range were winsorized and changed to the calculated maximum or minimum value.
Baseline values of all parameters were compared between the study groups to show accordance for demographic and anamnestic parameters. For all tests of the descriptive analysis: In case of normally distributed continuous data (examined using a Shapiro Wilk test) t-tests were used for group comparison. Non-normally distributed continuous data, and ordinal data were tested via Kruskal Wallis tests. Categorical data were tested by χ2-tests.
Changes over time were analyzed using a linear mixed model (LMM). A maximum likelihood approach was used. Linear, quadratic and cubic time trends were tested as described by Shek and Ma [61]. Breed groups were used as predictors with owners of CKCS being the reference group, since owners of the smallest breed with the lowest energy levels were hypothesized to be least active. A random intercept was used for subjects. All other variables were defined as fixed. The time points were nested within individuals. The model was built using a step-by-step approach, adding one predictor at a time. First, the time trends were added one by one. If an added variable (e.g., quadratic trend) did not improve the model, the next stage was discarded (e.g., cubic trend). The best models were identified using the −2 log-likelihoods of the separate models and χ2-tests as recommended by Field and Tabachnik and Fidell [62,63].
Additionally, a completer analysis was performed. For this purpose, only participants who had completed the whole study were examined using a repeated measures ANOVA. Due to the small sample sizes only within group analysis were performed.
If participants stated at one point in time that they owned several of the selected breeds and at another point in time only one of the selected breeds, only the latter was retained in the LMM. Participants that owned more than one of the specified breeds at one point in time were excluded from the ANOVA because only the effects of the individual dog breeds should be examined.
The level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05 in all tests. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27.

3. Results

3.1. Classification of Dog Breeds

JRT and PRT were merged together to form a single group in order to ensure a sufficiently large sample size. They do not differ in their energy level as evaluated by the C-BARQ (t = 1.18, df = 413, p = 0.239).
Overall, significant differences in energy level were found within the groups of small (CKCS, WHWT, JRT/PRT) (F (2, 665) = 19.03, p < 0.001), medium (WHIP, LAB, BC) (F (2, 2824) = 29.11, p < 0.001) and large (BERN, ROTT, BSD) (F (2, 934) = 54.45, p < 0.001) dog breeds. Linear trends were analyzed and shown to be significant (Fsmall (1, 665) = 34.39, psmall < 0.001; Fmedium (1, 2824) = 51.12, pmedium < 0.001; Flarge (1, 934) = 92.45, plarge < 0.001). Compared to WHWT (2.01 ± 0.97), CKCS (1.78 ± 1.01) had a lower and JRT/PRT (2.37 ± 1.07) had a higher energy level. In contrast to LAB (2.02 ± 1.08), WHIP (1.63 ± 0.98) exhibited a lower energy level, while BC exhibited higher energy levels (2.25 ± 1.05). Taking the energy levels of ROTT (1.97 ± 1.06) as reference, the energy levels of BERN (1.78 ± 0.96) were lower and of BSD (2.80 ± 0.99) were higher.

3.2. Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population and Dog Breeds

At T0 435 dog owner participated, of which 84 completed the study. Thus, the dropout rate was 80.7%. For a more detailed description see Figure 1. The number of participants per breed at T0 varied from 20 (WHWT) to 98 (BC).
An overview of the statistically significant differences of the sociodemographic and anthropometric variables at baseline is summarized in Table 1. There were differences in the distribution in smoking status (χ2 = 20.47, df = 9, p = 0.015), educational attainment (H = 43.41, df = 9, p < 0.001), income in € (H = 25.40, df = 9, p = 0.003), children under 18 years of age living in the household (χ2 = 16.92, df = 9, p = 0.050), age of the participant (H = 27.71, df = 9, p < 0.001) and the number of dogs living in the household (H = 37.36, df = 9, p < 0.001). No differences in the distribution between the dog owner groups were detected in terms of gender (χ2 = 10.92, df = 9, p = 0.282), completer status (χ2 = 4.76, df = 9, p = 0.855), relationship status (χ2 = 7.89, df = 9, p = 0.545), employment status (χ2 = 23.04, df = 9, p = 0.189), size of hometown (H = 6.49, df = 9, p = 0.690), people over the age of 59 years living in the household (χ2 = 4.32, df = 9, p = 0.889), garden ownership (χ2 = 14.76, df = 9, p = 0.098), chronic diseases of participants (χ2 = 8.94, df = 9, p = 0.443) or the BMI (H = 16.55, df = 9, p = 0.056). On average, participants engaged in 26.6 ± 15.8 h/week total PA, 14.7 ± 8.5 h/week dog-related PA, 12.0 ± 7.2 h/week leisure time walking and 11.3 ± 6.9 h/week dog walking at baseline.
Differences between the dogs of different breeds are displayed in Table 2.

3.3. Baseline Comparison of PA

At baseline, the outcomes of PA were analyzed with all participants who owned one of the specified dog breeds, but without the owners that reported having more than one of the specified breeds. Statistically significant differences in dog-related PA (H (8) = 26.99, p < 0.001, Figure 2) and dog walking (H (8) = 16.49, p = 0.036, Figure 3) were found between the owners of the specified dog breeds. Differences in total PA (H (8) = 13.78, p = 0.088, Figure 4) and leisure time walking (H (8) = 15.46, p = 0.051, Figure 5) did not reach statistical significance. The following dog-related activities or activities that could be performed with a dog were reported most frequently by the participants: bicycle riding (n = 108), ball work (activities that were indicated as using a ball with the dog, like “ball play” or “fetching the ball”) (n = 75), jogging (n = 72), (rally)obedience (activities in which the dog’s obedience is practiced on a course) (n = 72) and agility (n = 67). Statistically significant differences between the owners of the selected dog breeds were identified in ball work, (rally)obedience and agility (Table 3).

3.4. Changes of PA over Time

The results of total PA show statistically significant variability across participants, Var(u0j) = 149.07, standard error (SE) = 15.29, Wald Z = 9.75, p < 0.001. There is a statistically significant linear decrease of total PA over time, F (1, 498.63) = 6.85, p = 0.009. The breed groups were found to differ from one another, F (8, 406.28) = 2.21, p = 0.026. However, no significant differences were found if the individual estimates of dog breeds were compared to CKCS (Figure 4, Table 4).
Dog-related PA shows statistically significant variability among individuals, Var(u0j) = 49.37, SE = 4.58, Wald Z = 10.79, p < 0.001. The results demonstrate a statistically significant linear decrease over time, F (1, 440.56) = 12.58, p < 0.001. Additionally, the owners of the different dog breeds were found to differ statistically significantly from each other, F (8, 400.20) = 3.46, p = 0.001. It was found that owners of WHWT, LAB, BC, ROTT and BSD engage in significantly more dog-related PA than owner of CKCS (Figure 2, Table 4).
Leisure time walking was identified to differ statistically significantly between individuals, Var(u0j) = 34.62, SE = 3.27, Wald Z = 10.59, p < 0.001. A statistically significant decrease of leisure time walking was identified over time, F (1, 446.88) = 3.87, p = 0.050. Additionally, the interaction term between the linear time trend and the breed groups was found to be statistically significant, F (8, 444.16) = 2.36, p = 0.017, indicating that the leisure time walking changes over time, depending on the dog breed. However, no effect was found for the breed groups itself, F (8, 461.78) = 1.50, p = 0.153. The interaction term demonstrates that the owners of ROTT increase their leisure time walking in comparison to owners of CKCS (Figure 5, Table 4).
Statistically significant individual differences were found in the participants in dog-walking, Var(u0j) = 31.46, SE = 3.03, Wald Z = 10.39, p < 0.001. A negative linear trend was identified over time, F (1, 425.62) = 7.77, p = 0.006. However, a quadratic increase over time was also found to be statistically significant, F (1, 396.47) = 4.41, p = 0.036. This suggests that there is a steeper decrease in the beginning of the study. Further, the breed groups were found to differ significantly, F (8, 396.09) = 2.23, p = 0.025. It was found that owners of WHWT, LAB and ROTT engaged in significantly more dog walking than owners of CKCS (Figure 3, Table 4).

3.5. Changes of PA in the Completers Population

To identify if those who completed all questionnaires did not differ from those who completed questionnaires only at some time points, a completers analysis was carried out. The significant differences of completers and non-completers in the sociodemographic variables are shown in Table 5. There were differences between completers and non-completers in gender (χ2 = 5.15, df = 1, p = 0.024), smoking status (χ2 = 6.59, df = 1, p = 0.012), educational attainment (U = 11,062, z = (3.70, p < 0.001), employment status (χ2 = 9.40, df = 2, p = 0.009), income in € (U = 13,167, z = 3.59, p < 0.001) and chronic diseases of the participants (χ2 = 8.93, df = 1, p = 0.002). No differences were detected in breed that the participant owns (χ2 = 4.76, df = 9, p = 0.855), relationship status (χ2 = 0.07, df = 1, p = 0.787), size of hometown (U = 13,957, z = −0.79, p = 0.428), garden ownership (χ2 = 1.91, df = 1, p = 0.205), children under the age of 18 years (χ2 = 0.01, df = 1, p = 1.000) or adults over the age of 59 years (χ2 = 0.10, df = 1, p = 0.867) living in the household, age of the participant (t = (1.14, df = 139, p = 0.257), BMI (t = 0.02, df = 423, p = 983), number of dogs in the household (t = 1.18, df = 140.2, p = 0.242), age of the dog (t = −0.42, df = 886, p = 0.676), size of the dog (t = −0.05, df = 891, p = 0.961) or weight of the dog (t = 0.36, df = 893, p = 0.719).
Significant differences in total PA and dog-related PA were found between completers and non-completers at T0 and in total PA at T1. No other significant differences appeared in total PA and dog-related PA. In leisure time walking and dog walking no significant differences were found between completers and non-completers at any time point (Table 6). However, non-completers scored higher in leisure time and dog walking at T0 and T1, but lower at T2 than completers.
If only completers were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, no changes in any of the PA outcomes were detected (Table 7). Due to the small sample size for some of the breed groups, only changes over time were examined.

3.6. Changes in PA after a Dog Died

At T1 24, T2 16 and T3 17 participants reported that at least one dog had died, respectively. As a consequence, 57 dogs died during the course of the study. However, in the subgroup of participants whose dog died, no significant changes in total PA (Δ = 1.08 ± 12.3, t = (0.66, df = 56, p = 0.510) or leisure time walking (Δ = (0.12 ± 4.7, t = 0.20, df = 56, p = 0.843) were detected, after the dog had died.
Only one of the participants reported not owning another dog after the dog’s death. Before the dog died this participant reported 10.5 h/week of leisure time walking and 16.7 h/week of total PA per week. All leisure time walking was performed as dog walking and dog-related PA accounted for 11.7 h/week (70.1%) of total PA. After the dog died, the participant reported 3 h/week of total PA. This corresponds to a decrease of 82% in total PA. No leisure time walking was reported after the death of the dog.

4. Discussion

The main purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of dog size, energy level and dog age on their owners’ PA behavior. At baseline, no statistical group differences were identified for total PA and leisure time walking. In contrast, groups differed significantly in dog-related PA and dog walking as well as in the types of chosen activities.
According to the LMM analysis, total PA, dog-related PA, leisure time walking and dog walking decreased significantly over 3 years in all groups except for leisure time walking in owners of ROTT. In this group, leisure time walking increased over time. In the group of dog owners that completed the trial, no changes in total PA, dog-related PA, leisure time walking and dog walking could be observed.
These findings suggest that the type of PA—and as a potential consequence the intensity of PA—might have a greater impact on physical health of the owners of different dog breeds than just the duration of PA.
The duration and variability in the data of total and dog-related PA is slightly higher than in other German cross sectional studies that used the same questionnaire [6,17]. The reasons for this finding remain unclear. However, high individual variability is a well-known phenomenon in this field of study (e.g., [1,13,15,64,65]).
Old age of dogs is negatively correlated with PA of their owners [35,36,39,40,42]. Thus, it was hypothesized that PA levels of dog owners decrease over time. However, the results only partly support this hypothesis. Although a negative trend was found in the overall population, this trend was not supported if only completers were analyzed. The lack of PA decline could be explained by the fact that many of the dogs might not have been sufficiently old to display an age-related decline in PA. Given the results of Patronek et al. (1997), the mean physiological age of all dog breeds would have been at the younger end of the middle-aged spectrum (28 to 39 human years). Therefore, three years later, the dogs’ mean physiological age would not exceed 55 human years. At T3, the dogs were probably not old enough and the dogs were still too healthy to cause a decrease in their owners’ PA. Another explanation could be that non-completers reported higher amounts of all PA outcomes at T0 and T1 and in total PA at T2. Although not all of the comparisons were significant on a statistical level, the decreases in PA that were detected in the LMMs might be derived from participants who either overreported their PA or were more physically active, but did not complete the study and thus might bias the results. Thorpe et al. reported that in their population, dog walkers’ PA levels decreased at the same rate as in all other groups after three years. However, the participants of Thorpe et al. were between 70 and 79 years old at baseline and, thus, not comparable to the population of the current investigation [66].
Earlier studies demonstrated that having multiple dogs deters dog owners from engaging in dog-related PA [36,67,68]. However, having multiple dogs might also help owners to remain active when one of the dogs gets old or sick. Only one participant reported that her dog died and that no other dog remained in the household afterwards. The level of PA dropped dramatically after the dogs’ death. However, this is only a single case and cannot be extrapolated to a larger group of dog owners. Degeling and Rock report a similar case. They state that one of their participants was less motivated to exercise after the dog’s death, but another participant reported the opposite [40]. In the present study, except for the one named case, there was always another dog living in the household when another dog had died. In these cases, no changes emerged in total PA and leisure time walking when a dog died. This indicates that, if at least one dog remains in the household, the death of one dog does not impact the PA behavior of the dog owner. Future studies are warranted to investigate the relationship of owning several dogs, dog death and PA of the owners.
The results do not show a clear pattern that owners of larger or more energetic dogs were more active than owners of dog breeds that are smaller or less energetic. This contradicts earlier findings [29,31,32,34,36]. It indicates that just the size and energy level of a dog breed are insufficient to predict how much PA the owner will engage in with and without their dog. It suggests that other factors need to be taken into account. However, the cited studies asked the owners for their perception of their dogs. The current study categorized the dog breeds based on their energy level a priori. Consequently, the energy level attributed to each dog by the owner may not match the category based on the breed-average C-BARQ scores. It is possible that the owner’s perception of an individual dog’s energy level may be more reliable than a level derived from averaging multiple assessments of dogs of the same breed.
Further, a cultural element may complicate the interpretation of the influence of a dog’s energy level on the owners’ PA. Nagasawa et al. found that dogs in Japan are perceived as more energetic and restless than dogs in the USA [69]. Therefore, the influence of the energy level of a dog on the PA behavior of their owner might differ between people from different cultural backgrounds. The current investigation used data from the C-BARQ study that takes place in the USA and is mainly performed in English [45]. Thus, it remains unclear whether the average perception of German and US-American dog owners of their dog’s energy level match or whether there are slightly different.
Several differences in the selection of PA types were found between the owners of the different dog breeds. However, due to the limitations of study design, these differences cannot be explained. It could be assumed that some dog breeds are better suited for certain activities than others. Some dogs might not be able to engage in PA at an intensity that is beneficial to the owner. This could explain the lower volume of dog-related PA in CKCS compared to WHWT, LAB, BC, ROTT and BSD. Since no statistically significant differences between the owners of CKCS and owners of the other dog breeds were detected in total PA, this suggests that owners of CKCS engage in other non-dog-related activities more than other owners. This could in turn lead to greater health benefits for the owners of CKCS, due to increased intensities. This may be especially true since an earlier study indicated that dog-related PA are mostly not of a moderate intensity [17]. However, this study did not investigate the types of PA. Therefore, it is not possible to conclusively assess the quality of the non-dog-related PAs.
Some activities might also be performed with certain dog types more often. For example, (rally)obedience was mostly performed by owners of medium to large breed dogs, especially owners of BC, ROTT and BSD. Arhant et al. report that owners of larger dogs are more likely to be engaged in this activity [34]. Especially, owners of ROTT and BSD might perform these activities because they might be afraid that their dogs are strong enough to harm other people and need to be “under the control” of the owner. On the other hand, ROTT do not show increased stranger-directed, dog-directed and owner-directed aggression or dog rivalry as compared to other dog breeds [37]. This could indicate that ROTT owners either successfully take part in activities like (rally)obedience or dog school training. However, the reasons why certain dog owners engage in certain activities remain not fully understood.
There were great differences between the dog breeds in regards to neuter status. Especially JRT/PRT and ROTT were often neutered, while BERN, CKCS and WHIP were more often non-neutered. At the outset, this was not anticipated and the authors have no explanation for this finding. However, it is conceivable that there are owner beliefs about dogs of the selected breeds that have not been surveyed and might influence whether or not owners decide to neuter their dogs.
During the COVID-19 pandemic no serious decrease of PA was detected in this study. Earlier studies that focused on PA during the COVID-19 pandemic identified dramatic declines in moderate to vigorous PA [70,71] with potentially serious health effects [72]. Similar declines in dog walking and PA have been found in some [73,74] but not all [75] studies that focus on dog owners. Thus, the current study indicates that dog ownership could be a protective factor against the decline of PA during the pandemic and that dog owners might benefit greatly from their dogs in terms of PA during the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, it has to be emphasized that the legal framework varied greatly between different countries in regard to the lockdowns. The opportunities owners had to walk their dogs during lockdown varied greatly between different countries. For example, the lockdown in Spain and Serbia included dog walking [73,74], while leisure time walking was allowed during the lockdown in Germany [76]. Overall, it must be considered that the COVID-19 pandemic is an exceptional event that impacts the lives of people worldwide. Therefore, the study results are probably not generalizable, or only with limitations, to a time outside the pandemic.
Overall, this study has some limitations. As with most studies in this field, it relies exclusively on self-reported PA. Several studies in different populations show that over-reporting is a common problem in self-reported PA, especially moderate to vigorous PA [77,78,79,80,81,82]. This may also be true for this study. However, the results are similar to earlier studies that also used the BSA-F [6,17]. Thus, it is likely that the results are reliable.
Further, the BSA-F does not include an assessment of the intensities of PAs. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the intensity of the reported PAs is sufficient to produce health enhancing effects. Overall, results on the intensity of dog-related PA remain controversial. Hielscher et al. considered it likely that most of the dog-related PA failed to achieve moderate intensity [17], which would be necessary to reach the PA guidelines as specified by the World Health Organization (WHO) [83]. However, Richards et al. state that a considerable amount of dog-related PA is of at least moderate intensity [18]. Thus, dog-related PA could be considered to be health enhancing. Furthermore, recent studies highlight the positive impact of light intensity PA on health and mortality [23,84,85,86,87], even though moderate to vigorous PA is considered to be more effective [23,86,87]. Thus, the high levels of PA in this study show that dog owners are likely to benefit from their dogs due to increased levels of PA, regardless of the breed.
The recruitment design of the study was based solely on self-selection in a convenience sample. This might have biased the results because only the most motivated dog owners participated in the study. It is possible that the PA behavior of these owners differs systematically from owners who did not participate in the study. However, self-selection bias is a phenomenon that is not limited to online research, as the results of Oswald et al. show [88]. Nevertheless, interpreting and generalizing the data has to be treated with caution.
Participants were mostly recruited online. It is possible that dog owners who use dog-centric online media are more active with their dog than dog owners who are not organized in dog-related social media groups. This could be related to the fact that dog owners in dog-related online groups identify more strongly with their dog and the ownership of a dog and therefore have different attitudes than dog owners who are not organized in this way, which, in turn, might be reflected in their dog ownership behavior. This, together with self-selection bias, may limit the extent to which the findings can be generalized to the whole dog owner population.
The dropout rate in this study was high. It has been shown that a higher dropout rate is associated with a greater bias in statistical models [89,90]. The results of the completer analysis show that participants with a lower educational status dropped out of the current study more often. This is congruent with the results of Gustavson et al. [90]. This suggests caution when generalizing the current findings. Because the reasons for dropping out of the study could not be investigated, it remains unclear how this could bias the results. However, the fact that completers and non-completers differed in several ways suggests that the results may be biased in some way. Most participants who dropped out terminated their participation in the second year, thus, before the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the authors do not believe that the pandemic influenced the decision to terminate participation to a great extent.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the study shows that the PA behavior of owners of the selected breeds is stable over time in this population. The aging of the dog was only found to have a minor influence on the PA of the owners. Anecdotal evidence suggests that losing one’s dog might have a significant, negative impact on dog owners’ PA.
The results also provide evidence that owners of different dog breeds differ in their choice of PA types, as in the duration of total PA, total dog-related PA, leisure time walking and dog walking. The extent to which this influences the health of the dog owner remains unclear and must be examined in future studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/ani12101314/s1, the questionnaire translated into English and used in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.H.-Z., I.F. and U.G.; methodology, B.H.-Z., I.F., U.G. and J.S.; formal analysis, B.H.-Z.; investigation, B.H.-Z.; data curation, B.H.-Z.; writing—original draft preparation, B.H.-Z.; writing—review and editing, B.H.-Z., I.F., J.S. and U.G.; visualization, B.H.-Z.; supervision, U.G. and I.F.; project administration, B.H.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the German Sport University Cologne (No.: 108/2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data on sociodemographics and physical activity are available upon request from Benedikt Hielscher-Zdzieblik, while the data on the C-BARQ are available upon request from James Serpell.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the dog owners for participating in the studies. Furthermore, the authors want to thank the above-mentioned organizations and social media groups that supported the recruitment of study participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cutt, H.E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M.; Timperio, A.; Bull, F. Understanding Dog Owners’ Increased Levels of Physical Activity: Results From RESIDE. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Brown, S.G.; Rhodes, R.E. Relationships Among Dog Ownership and Leisure-Time Walking in Western Canadian Adults. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006, 30, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maugeri, A.; Medina-Inojosa, J.; Kunzova, S.; Barchitta, M.; Agodi, A.; Vinciguerra, M.; Lopez-Jimenez, F. Dog Ownership and Cardiovascular Health: Results From the Kardiovize 2030 Project. Mayo Clin. Proceed. Innov. Qual. Outcomes 2019, 3, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mičková, E.; Machová, K.; Dadóvá, K.; Svobodová, I. Does Dog Ownership Affect Physical Activity, Sleep, and Self-Reported Health in Older Adults? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Wasenius, N.S.; Laine, M.K.; Savola, S.; Simonen, M.; Tiira, K.; Lohi, H.; Eriksson, J.G.; Salonen, M.K. Dog Ownership From a Life Course Perspective and Leisure-Time Physical Activity in Late Adulthood: The Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Am. J. Health Behav. 2018, 42, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hielscher, B.; Gansloßer, U.; Froboese, I. Impacts of Dog Ownership and Attachment on Total and Dog-related Physical Activity in Germany. Hum. Anim. Interact. Bull. 2021, 10, 22–43. [Google Scholar]
  7. Oka, K.; Shibata, A. Dog Ownership and Health-Related Physical Activity Among Japanese Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2009, 6, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dall, P.M.; Ellis, S.L.H.; Ellis, B.M.; Grant, P.M.; Colyer, A.; Gee, N.R.; Granat, M.H.; Mills, D.S. The Influence of Dog Ownership on Objective Measures of Free-Living Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Longitudinal Case-Controlled Study. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ding, D.; Bauman, A.E.; Sherrington, C.; McGreevy, P.D.; Edwards, K.M.; Stamatakis, E. Dog Ownership and Mortality in England: A Pooled Analysis of Six Population-Based Cohorts. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 54, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Feng, Z.; Dibben, C.; Witham, M.D.; Donnan, P.T.; Vadiveloo, T.; Sniehotta, F.; Crombie, I.K.; McMurdo, M.E.T. Dog Ownership and Physical Activity in Later Life: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Prev. Med. 2014, 66, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mein, G.; Grant, R. A Cross-Sectional Exploratory Analysis Between Pet Ownership, Sleep, Exercise, Health and Neighbourhood Perceptions: The Whitehall II Cohort Study. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Solomon, E.; Rees, T.; Ukoumunne, O.C.; Metcalf, B.; Hillsdon, M. Personal, Social, and Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity in Adults Living in Rural South-West England: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Westgarth, C.; Christley, R.M.; Jewell, C.; Boddy, L.M.; Christian, H.E. 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. Nat. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Serpell, J. Beneficial Effects of Pet Ownership on Some Aspects of Human Health and Behaviour. J. R. Soc. Med. 1991, 84, 717–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Park, M.; Park, H.K.; Hwang, H.S.; Park, K.Y.; Yim, H.H. The Relationship Between Dog Ownership and Physical Activity in Korean Adults. Korean J. Fam. Med. 2020, 42, 42–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gretebeck, K.A.; Radius, K.; Black, D.R.; Gretebeck, R.J.; Ziemba, R.; Glickman, L.T. Dog Ownership, Funcional Ability, and Walking in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hielscher, B.; Gansloßer, U.; Froboese, I. More Than “Just” Walking: An Observational Study of Dog-Related Physical Activities. People Anim. Int. J. Res. Pract. 2020, 3, 7. [Google Scholar]
  18. Richards, E.A.; Troped, P.J.; Lim, E. Assessing the Intensity of Dog Walking and Impact on Overall Physical Activity: A Pilot Study Using Accelerometry. Open J. Prev. Med. 2014, 4, 523–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cutt, H.E.; Knuiman, M.W.; Giles-Corti, B. Does Getting a Dog Increase Recreational Walking? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Potter, K.; Teng, J.E.; Masteller, B.; Rajala, C.; Balzer, L.B. Examining How Dog ‘Acquisition’ Affects Physical Activity and Psychosocial Well-Being: Findings from the BuddyStudy Pilot Trial. Animals 2019, 9, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Powell, L.; Edwards, K.M.; Bauman, A.; McGreevy, P.; Podberscek, A.; Neilly, B.; Sherrington, C.; Stamatakis, E. Does Dog Acquisition Improve Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Biological Markers of Cardiometabolic Health? Results From a Three-Arm Controlled Study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2020, 6, e000703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Matthews, C.E.; Keadle, S.K.; Troiano, R.P.; Kahle, L.; Koster, A.; Brychta, R.; Van Domelen, D.; Caserotti, P.; Chen, K.Y.; Harris, T.B.; et al. Accelerometer-Measured Dose-Response for Physical Activity, Sedentary Time, and Mortality in US Adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 104, 1424–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Ekelund, U.; Tarp, J.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Hansen, B.H.; Jefferis, B.; Fagerland, M.W.; Whincup, P.; Diaz, K.M.; Hooker, S.P.; Chernofsky, A.; et al. Dose-Response Associations Between Accelerometry Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Time and all Cause Mortality: Systematic Review and Harmonised Meta-Analysis. BMJ 2019, 366, l4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Garber, C.E.; Blissmer, B.; Deschenes, M.R.; Franklin, B.A.; Lamonte, M.J.; Lee, I.M.; Nieman, D.C.; Swain, D.P. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1334–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kyu, H.H.; Bachman, V.F.; Alexander, L.T.; Mumford, J.E.; Afshin, A.; Estep, K.; Veerman, J.L.; Delwiche, K.; Iannarone, M.L.; Moyer, M.L.; et al. Physical Activity and Risk of Breast Cancer, Colon Cancer, Diabetes, Ischemic Heart Disease, and Ischemic Stroke Events: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. 2013. Available online: http://0-www-bmj-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/content/354/bmj.i3857 (accessed on 2 April 2017).
  26. Paluch, A.E.; Bajpai, S.; Bassett, D.R.; Carnethon, M.R.; Ekelund, U.; Evenson, K.R.; Galuska, D.A.; Je, B.J.; Kraus, W.E.; Lee, I.-M.; et al. Daily Steps and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of 15 International Cohorts. Lancet Public Health 2022, 7, e219–e228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mubanga, M.; Byberg, L.; Nowak, C.; Egenvall, A.; Magnusson, P.K.; Ingelsson, E.; Fall, T. Dog Ownership and the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Death—A Nationwide Cohort Study. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bauman, A.; Owen, K.B.; Torske, M.O.; Ding, D.; Krokstad, S.; Stamatakis, E. Does Dog Ownership Really Prolong Survival?: A Revised Meta-Analysis and Reappraisal of the Evidence. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2020, 13, e006907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cutt, H.E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. Encouraging Physical Activity Through Dog Walking: Why Don’t Some Owners Walk With Their Dog? Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pickup, E.; German, A.J.; Blackwell, E.; Evans, M.; Westgarth, C. Variation in Activity Levels Amongst Dogs of Different Breeds: Results of a Large Online Survey of Dog Owners From the United Kingdom. J. Nutr. Sci. 2017, 17, e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Lim, C.; Rhodes, R.E. Sizing up Physical Activity: The Relationships Between Dog Characteristics, Dog Owners’ Motivations, and Dog Walking. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2016, 24, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schofield, G.; Mummery, K.; Steele, R. Dog Ownership and Human Health-Related Physical Activity: An Epidemiological Study. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2005, 16, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Oka, K.; Shibata, A. Prevalence and Correlates of Dog Walking Among Japanese Dog Owners. J. Phys. Act. Health 2012, 9, 786–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Arhant, C.; Bubna-Littitz, H.; Bartels, A.; Futschik, A.; Troxler, J. Behaviour of Smaller and Larger Dogs: Effects of Training Methods, Inconsistency of Owner Behaviour and Level of Engagement in Activities With the Dog. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 123, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Reeves, M.J.; Rafferty, A.P.; Miller, C.E.; Lyon-Callo, S.K. The Impact of Dog Walking on Leisure-Time Physical Activity: Results From a Population-Based Survey of Michigan Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Richards, E.A.; McDonough, M.H.; Edwards, N.E.; Lyle, R.M.; Troped, P.J. Psychosocial and Environmental Factors Associated With Dog-Walking. Int. J. Health Promot. Educ. 2013, 51, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Serpell, J.; Duffy, D.L. Dog Breeds and Their Behavior. In Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior: The Scientific Study of Canis Familiaris; Horowitz, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 31–57. ISBN 978-3-642-53993-0. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tonoike, A.; Nagasawa, M.; Mogi, K.; Serpell, J.; Ohtsuki, H.; Kikusui, T. Comparison of Owner-Reported Behavioral Characteristics Among Genetically Clustered Breeds of Dog (Canis familiaris). Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 17710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Cutt, H.E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Wood, L.J.; Knuiman, M.W.; Burke, V. Barriers and Motivators for Owners Walking Their Dog: Results From Qualitative Research. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2008, 19, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Degeling, C.; Rock, M.J. “It was not Just a Walking Experience”: Reflections on the Role of Care in Dog-Walking. Health Promot. Int. 2013, 28, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Belshaw, Z.; Dean, R.; Asher, L. Slower, Shorter, Sadder: A Qualitative Study Exploring How Dog Walks Change When the Canine Participant Develops Osteoarthritis. BMC Vet. Res. 2020, 16, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Downes, M.J.; Devitt, C.; Downes, M.T.; More, S.J. Understanding the Context for Pet Cat and Dog Feeding and Exercising Behaviour Among Pet Owners in Ireland: A Qualitative Study. Ir. Vet. J. 2017, 70, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Patronek, G.J.; Waters, D.J.; Glickman, L.T. Comparative Longevity of Pet Dogs and Humans: Implications for Gerontology Research. Prev. Sch. Fail. 1997, 52A, B171–B178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Verband für das Deutsche Hundewesen Welpenstatistik (Presse-Informationen). Available online: http://www.vdh.de/presse/welpenstatistik/ (accessed on 12 December 2016).
  45. Serpell, J. University of Pennsylvania About the C-BARQ. Available online: https://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/about.cfm (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  46. Hsu, Y.; Serpell, J.A. Development and Validation of a Questionnaire for Measuring Behavior and Temperament Traits in Pet Dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2003, 223, 1293–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. FCI FCI—Standard N° 136. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/136g09-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  48. FCI FCI—Standard N° 85. West Highland White Terrier. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/085g03-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  49. FCI FCI—Standard N° 345. Jack Russell Terrier. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/345g03-de.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2020).
  50. FCI FCI—Standard N° 339. Parson Russel Terrier. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/339g03-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  51. FCI FCI—Standard N° 162. Whippet. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/162g10-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  52. FCI FCI—Standard N° 122. Labrador Retriever. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/122g08-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  53. FCI FCI—Standard N° 297. Border Collie. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/297g01-en.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2019).
  54. FCI FCI—Standard N° 45. Bernese Mountain Dog. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/045g02-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  55. FCI FCI—Standard N° 147. Rottweiler. Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/147g02-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  56. FCI FCI—Standard N° 15. Chien de Berger Belge (Belgian Shepherd Dog). Available online: http://www.fci.be/Nomenclature/Standards/015g01-en.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2017).
  57. Adams, S.A.; Matthews, C.E.; Ebbeling, C.B.; Moore, C.G.; Joan, E.; Fulton, J.; Hebert, J.R. The Effect of Social Desirability and Social Approval on Self-Reports of Physical Activity. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2005, 161, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Fuchs, R.; Klaperski, S.; Gerber, M.; Seelig, H. Messung der Bewegungs-und Sportaktivität mit dem BSA-Fragebogen. Eine methodische Zwischenbilanz. [Measuring Physical and Exercise Activity Using the BSA-Questionnaire. A Methodological Interim Balance]. Z. Für. Gesundh. 2015, 23, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. University of Freiburg Measuring Exercise and Physical Activity [Messung der Sport-und Bewegungsaktivität]. Available online: https://www.sport.uni-freiburg.de/de/institut/psychologie/messinstrumente/Messung_der_Sport_und_Bewegungsaktivitaet (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  60. SoSci Survey GmbH Privacy and Data Protection in Online Surveys. Available online: https://www.soscisurvey.de/en/privacy (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  61. Shek, D.T.L.; Ma, C.M.S. Longitudinal Data Analyses Using Linear Mixed Models in SPSS: Concepts, Procedures and Illustrations. Sci. World J. 2011, 11, 42–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4462-4917-8. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tabachnik, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014; ISBN 1-292-02131-4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Liao, Y.; Huang, P.-H.; Chen, Y.-L.; Hsueh, M.-C.; Chang, S.-H. Dog Ownership, Dog Walking, and Leisure-time Walking Among Taiwanese Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Older Adults. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Christian, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M. “I’m Just a’-Walking the Dog” Correlates of Regular Dog Walking. Fam. Community Health 2010, 33, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Thorpe, R.J.; Simonsick, E.M.; Brach, J.S.; Ayonayon, H.; Satterfield, S.; Harris, T.B.; Garcia, M.; Kritchevsky, S.B. Dog Ownership, Walking Behavior, and Maintained Mobility in Late Life. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006, 54, 1419–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Westgarth, C.; Christian, H.E.; Christley, R.M. Factors Associated With Daily Walking of Dogs. BMC Vet. Res. 2015, 11, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Masters, A.M.; McGreevy, P.D. Dogkeeping Practices as Reported by Readers of an Australian Dog Enthusiast Magazine. Aust. Vet. J. 2008, 86, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nagasawa, M.; Kanbayashi, S.; Mogi, K.; Serpell, J.; Kikusui, T. Comparison of Behavioral Characteristics of Dogs in the United States and Japan. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2016, 78, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Wilke, J.; Mohr, L.; Tenforde, A.S.; Edouard, P.; Fossati, C.; González-Gross, M.; Ramírez, C.S.; Laiño, F.; Tan, B.; Pillay, J.D.; et al. A Pandemic Within the Pandemic? Physical Activity Levels Substantially Decreased in Countries Affected by COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ammar, A.; Brach, M.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; Boukhris, O.; Masmoudi, L.; Bouaziz, B.; Bentlage, E.; How, D.; Ahmed, M.; et al. Effects of COVID-19 Home Confinement on Eating Behaviour and Physical Activity: Results of the ECLB-COVID19 International Online Survey. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ammar, A.; Boukhris, O.; Halfpaap, N.; Labott, B.K.; Langhans, C.; Herold, F.; Grässler, B.; Müller, P.; Trabelsi, K.; Chtourou, H.; et al. Four Weeks of Detraining Induced by COVID-19 Reverse Cardiac Improvements From Eight Weeks of Fitness-Dance Training in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bowen, J.; García, E.; Darder, P.; Argüelles, J.; Fatjó, J. The Effects of the Spanish COVID-19 Lockdown on People, Their Pets, and the Human-Animal Bond. J. Vet. Behav. 2020, 40, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vučinić, M.; Vučićević, M.; Nenadović, K. The COVID-19 Pandemic Affects Owners Walking With Their Dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2020, 48, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Christley, R.M.; Murray, J.K.; Anderson, K.L.; Buckland, E.L.; Casey, R.A.; Harvey, N.D.; Harris, L.; Holland, K.E.; McMillan, K.M.; Mead, R.; et al. Impact of the First COVID-19 Lockdown on Management of Pet Dogs in the UK. Animals 2021, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Die Bundeskanzlerin und die Regierungschefinnen und Regierungschefs der Länder Erweiterung der Beschlossenen Leitlinien zur Beschränkung Sozialer Kontakte. Besprechung der Bundeskanzlerin mit den Regierungschefinnen und Regierungschefs der Länder vom 22.03.2020. Available online: https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/coronavirus/besprechung-der-bundeskanzlerin-mit-den-regierungschefinnen-und-regierungschefs-der-laender-vom-22-03-2020-1733248 (accessed on 11 March 2022).
  77. Hartley, S.; Garland, S.; Bennell, K.L.; Tay, I.; Gorelik, A. A Comparison of Self-Reported and Objective Physical Activity Measures in Young Australian Women. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2014, 1, e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nicolaou, M.; Gademan, M.G.J.; Snijder, M.B.; Engelbert, R.H.H.; Dijkshoorn, H.; Terwee, C.B.; Stronks, K. Validation of the SQUASH Physical Activity Questionnaire in a Multi-Ethnic Population: The HELIUS Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wagoner, C.W.; Choi, S.K.; Deal, A.M.; Lee, J.T.; Wood, W.A.; Muss, H.B.; Nyrop, K.A. Establishing Physical Activity in Breast Cancer: Self-Report Versus Activity Tracker. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2019, 176, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pedersen, S.J.; Kitic, C.M.; Bird, M.L.; Mainsbridge, C.P.; Cooley, P.D. Is Self-Reporting Workplace Activity Worthwhile? Validity and Reliability of Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire in Desk-Based Workers. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Pedersen, E.S.L.; Mortensen, L.H.; Brage, S.; Bjerregaard, A.L.; Aadahl, M. Criterion Validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danish Adults. Scand. J. Public Health 2018, 46, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Peters, T.M.; Shu, X.O.; Moore, S.C.; Xiang, Y.B.; Yang, G.; Ekelund, U.; Liu, D.K.; Tan, Y.T.; Ji, B.T.; Schatzkin, A.S.; et al. Validity of a Physical Activity Questionnaire in Shanghai. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 2222–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Al-Ansari, S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; Dempsey, P.; et al. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128 (accessed on 28 April 2021).
  84. Füzéki, E.; Engeroff, T.; Banzer, W. Health Benefits of Light-Intensity Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of Accelerometer Data of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Sport Med. 2017, 47, 1769–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Ku, P.-W.; Hamer, M.; Liao, Y.; Hsueh, M.C.; Chen, L.J. Device-Measured Light-Intensity Physical Activity and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport. 2020, 30, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Saint-Maurice, P.F.; Troiano, R.P.; Berrigan, D.; Kraus, W.E.; Matthews, C.E. Volume of Light Versus Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: Similar Benefits for All-Cause Mortality? J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e008815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Chastin, S.F.M.; De Craemer, M.; De Cocker, K.; Powell, L.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Dall, P.; Hamer, M.; Stamatakis, E. How Does Light-Intensity Physical Activity Associate With Adult Cardiometabolic Health and Mortality? Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Observational Studies. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019, 53, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Oswald, L.M.; Wand, G.S.; Zhu, S.; Selby, V. Volunteerism and Self-Selection Bias in Human Positron Emission Tomography Neuroimaging Research. Brain Imaging Behav. 2013, 7, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Pan, Y.; Zhan, P. The Impact of Sample Attrition on Longitudinal Learning Diagnosis: A Prolog. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gustavson, K.; Von Soest, T.; Karevold, E.; Roysamb, E. Attrition and Generalizability in Longitudinal Studies: Findings From a 15-Year Population-Based Study and a Monte Carlo Simulation Study. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Flow chart of participants over the course of the study. * 12 participants reported owning more than one of the specified dog breeds at all times of the study and were, therefore, excluded from the LMM. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Figure 1. Flow chart of participants over the course of the study. * 12 participants reported owning more than one of the specified dog breeds at all times of the study and were, therefore, excluded from the LMM. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Animals 12 01314 g001
Figure 2. Dog-related PA in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Figure 2. Dog-related PA in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Animals 12 01314 g002
Figure 3. Dog walking in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Figure 3. Dog walking in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Animals 12 01314 g003
Figure 4. Total PA in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Figure 4. Total PA in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Animals 12 01314 g004
Figure 5. Leisure time walking in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Figure 5. Leisure time walking in h/week (mean ± SD) of owners of different dog breeds at baseline (T0), after 1 (T1), 2 (T2) and 3 (T3) years. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Animals 12 01314 g005
Table 1. Sociodemographics of the participants split by owned breed at T0.
Table 1. Sociodemographics of the participants split by owned breed at T0.
VariableManifestationMore than 1 BreedCKCSWHWTJRT/
PRT
WHIPLABBCBERNROTTBSD
Smoking statusYes n (%)5 (38.5)8 (25.0)10 (50.0)7 (24.1)7 (20.6)15 (19.5)30 (30.6)7 (24.1)14 (51.9)30 (40.0)
No n (%)8 (61.5)24 (75.0)10 (50.0)22 (75.9)27 (79.4)62 (80.5)68 (69.4)22 (75.9)13 (48.1)45 (60.0)
EducationNo degree n (%)1 (7.7)00000001 (3.7)1 (1.3)
Secondary modern school qualification n (%)1 (7.7)2 (6.3)3 (15.0)3 (10.3)01 (1.3)6 (6.1)1 (3.4)5 (18.5)1 (1.3)
Intermediate high school certificate n (%)7 (53.8)12 (37.5)10 (50.0)9 (31.0)9 (26.5)22 (28.6)36 (36.7)12 (41.4)16 (59.3)37 (49.3)
University of applied science qualification or high school diploma n (%)2 (15.4)10 (31.3)5 (25.0)8 (27.6)11 (32.4)21 (27.3)29 (29.6)10 (34.5)3 (11.1)16 (21.3)
College or university degree n (%)2 (15.4)7 (21.9)2 (10.0)6 (20.7)12 (35.3)24 (31.2)26 (26.5)6 (20.7)2 (7.4)20 (26.7)
Dissertation n (%)01 (3.1)03 (10.3)2 (5.9)9 (11.7)1 (1.0)000
Income in €<1000 n (%)3 (30.0)5 (20.0)2 (10.5)2 (8.7)3 (12.5)5 (8.8)8 (9.3)1 (4.5)3 (12.5)12 (16.9)
1000–1999 n (%)4 (40.0)12 (48.0)5 (26.3)5 (21.7)2 (8.3)14 (24.6)38 (44.2)7 (31.8)10 (41.7)23 (32.4)
2000–2999 n (%)2 (20.0)4 (16.0)6 (31.6)7 (30.4)6 (25.0)13 (22.8)22 (25.6)4 (18.2)6 (25.0)13 (18.3)
3000–3999 n (%)03 (12.0)3 (15.8)8 (34.8)8 (33.3)9 (15.8)12 (14.0)5 (22.7)1 (4.2)12 (16.9)
4000–5999 n (%)1 (10.0)1 (4.0)3 (15.8)1 (4.3)5 (20.8)8 (14.0)5 (5.8)4 (18.2)1 (4.2)10 (14.1)
6000–7999 n (%)000005 (8.8)1 (1.2)01 (4.2)0
8000–9999 n (%)000002 (3.5)001 (4.2)0
≥10,000 n (%)000001 (1.8)01 (4.5)1 (4.2)1 (1.4)
Children under 18 years living in the householdYes n (%)6 (46.2)11 (35.5)1 (5.0)4 (13.8)4 (11.8)16 (21.1)20 (20.6)4 (13.8)8 (29.6)18 (24.0)
No n (%)7 (53.8)20 (64.5)19 (95.0)25 (86.2)30 (88.2)60 (78.9)77 (79.4)25 (86.2)8 (70.4)57 (76.0)
Age of the participantM (SD)37.5 (12.8)40.8 (11.9)50.2 (10.9)44.7 (12.5)41.2 (12.1)46.3 (12.2)39.3 (11.1)44.1 (12.2)42.4 (14.5)43.3 (10.7)
Number of dogs ownedM (SD)2.6 (1.0)2.1 (1.2)1.6 (1.1)1.8 (0.9)2.1 (0.8)2.0 (1.3)2.2 (1.1)1.8 (1.1)1.5 (.8)2.4 (1.1)
Notes: Only statistically significant differences are depicted. BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Table 2. Characteristics of the different dog breeds at baseline.
Table 2. Characteristics of the different dog breeds at baseline.
VariableManifestationOther Breed/MixCKCSWHWTJRT/PRTWHIPLABBCBMDROTTBSDStatisticsp
(df)
SexMale8423182743608721135018.51 a0.03
n(48)(41.8)(58.1)(52.9)(69.4)(42.6)(47.5)(48.8)(39.4)(41.7)(9)
(%)
Female91321324198196222070
n(52)(58.2)(41.9)(47.1)(30.6)(57.4)(52.5)(51.2)(60.6)(58.3)
(%)
Neutering statusNeutered971215311029508172996.32 a<0.001
n(55.4)(21.8)(48.4)(59.6)(16.1)(20.6)(27.3)(18.6)(51.5)(24.2)(9)
(%)
Intact7843162152112133351691
n(44.6)(78.2)(51.6)(40.4)(83.9)(79.4)(72.7)(81.4)(48.5)(75.8)
(%)
Chronic diseases of dogsYes36114562018451314.53 a0.105
n(20.7)(20)(12.9)(9.6)(9.8)(14.2)(9.8)(9.3)(15.2)(10.8)(9)
(%)
No138442747551211653928107
n(79.3)(80)(87.1)(90.4)(90.2)(85.8)(90.2)(90.7)(84.8)(89.2)
(%)
Age in yearsM6.64.35.36.54.55.24.43.64.44.86.36 b<0.001
(SD)(4)(3)(3.1)(4.2)(3.2)(3.7)(3.7)(2.7)(2.9)(3.5)(9, 878)
Notes: a, χ2-statistics; b, F-value for ANOVA; BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Table 3. Participation of owners of different dog breeds in different types of activities.
Table 3. Participation of owners of different dog breeds in different types of activities.
Type of ExerciseCKCSWHWTJRT/PRTWHIPLABBCBMDROTTBSDχ2-Valuep
nTTnnnnnn(df)
nn
(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)(%)
Riding the bicycle with the dog637141726542613.060.11
(18.8)(15)(24.1)(41.2)(22.1)(26.5)(17.2)(14.3)(34.7)(8)
Ball work3895913451918.580.017
(9.4)(40)(31)(14.7)(11.7)(13.3)(13.8)(17.9)(25.3)(8)
Jogging30431121642014.350.073
(9.4)(13.8)(8.8)(14.3)(21.4)(20.7)(14.3)(26.7)(8)
(Rally)Obedience0030424492856.6<0.001
(10.3)(5.2)(24.5)(13.8)(32.1)(37.3)(8)
Agility204634021965.85<0.001
(6.3)(13.8)(17.6)(3.9)(40.8)(6.9)(3.6)(12)(8)
Notes: Only participants who participated in the mentioned activity are displayed. Only activities that were mentioned at least 20 times are displayed; BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Table 4. Linear mixed models of total PA, dog-related PA, leisure time walking and dog walking over time in hours per week.
Table 4. Linear mixed models of total PA, dog-related PA, leisure time walking and dog walking over time in hours per week.
OutcomePredictorEstimateSE95% CIp
Total PA in h/weekIntercept26.392.5321.42, 31.37<0.001
Linear trend over time per month−0.090.03−0.15, −0.020.009
CKCSRef.
WHWT0.144.13−7.99, 8.270.973
JRT/PRT−3.583.7−10.85, 3.700.334
WHIP−5.823.52−12.74, 1.110.099
LAB−0.633.01−6.54, 5.280.834
BC−0.122.92−5.86, 5.620.966
BMD−2.243.55−9.21, 4.740.529
ROTT6.993.69−0.26, 14.240.059
BSD2.763.04−3.21, 8.740.364
Dog-related PA in h/weekIntercept11.051.368.37, 13.73<0.001
Linear trend over time per month−0.050.02−0.08, −0.02<0.001
CKCSRef.
WHWT4.852.240.45, 9.240.031
JRT/PRT0.562−3.37, 4.500.778
WHIP0.161.91−3.60, 3.910.935
LAB3.991.630.80, 7.190.015
BC4.341.581.24, 7.440.006
BMD2.191.89−1.53, 5.910.248
ROTT6.002.002.07, 9.920.003
BSD5.631.642.40, 8.850.001
Leisure time walking in h/weekIntercept10.561.198.22, 12.91<0.001
Linear trend over time per month−0.10.05−0.20, 0.000.048
CKCSRef.
WHWT3.811.95−0.02, 7.640.051
JRT/PRT−0.381.75−3.81, 3.050.828
WHIP−0.511.67−3.79, 2.780.762
LAB2.061.43−0.74, 4.860.15
BC1.141.38−1.57, 3.850.41
BMD0.531.69−2.79, 3.850.755
ROTT3.121.75−0.32, 6.560.076
BSD1.981.43−0.84, 4.800.168
CKCS*Linear trend over time per monthRef.
WHWT*Linear trend over time per month0.010.08−0.15, 0.170.898
JRT/PRT*Linear trend over time per month0.040.07−0.09, 0.170.532
WHIP*Linear trend over time per month0.030.06−0.10, 0.150.673
Lab*Linear trend over time per month0.040.06−0.07, 0.150.502
BC*Linear trend over time per month0.090.06−0.02, 0.200.124
BMD*Linear trend over time per month0.100.07−0.04, 0.230.153
ROTT*Linear trend over time per month0.270.070.12, 0.41<0.001
BSD*Linear trend over time per month0.050.06−0.07, 0.170.407
Dog walking in h/weekIntercept9.351.117.17, 11.53<0.001
Linear trend over time per month−0.110.04−0.18, −0.030.006
Quadratic trend over time per month0.0020.0010.000, 0.0040.036
CKCSRef.
WHWT4.281.820.71, 7.840.019
JRT/PRT−0.121.63−3.32, 3.070.94
WHIP01.55−3.05, 3.040.998
LAB2.741.320.14, 5.340.039
BC2.011.28−0.51, 4.530.117
BMD1.161.55−1.87, 4.200.452
ROTT4.221.621.04, 7.410.01
BSD2.521.33−0.10, 5.140.059
Notes: BC, Border Collie; BERN, Bernese Mountain Dog; BSD, Belgian Shepherd Dog; CKCS, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel; JRT/PRT, Jack and Parson Russell Terrier; LAB, Labrador Retriever; PA, physical activity; ROTT, Rottweiler; WHIP, Whippet; WHWT, West Highland White Terrier.
Table 5. Sociodemographic status of completers vs. non-completers.
Table 5. Sociodemographic status of completers vs. non-completers.
VariableManifestationCompleterNon-Completer
GenderMale n (%)4 (7.7)48 (92.3)
Female n (%)80 (20.9)302 (79.1)
SmokingYes n (%)16 (12.0)117 (88.0)
No n (%)68 (22.6)233 (77.4)
Educational attainmentNo degree n (%)03 (100.0)
Secondary modern school qualification n (%)2 (8.7)21 (91.3)
Intermediate high school certificate
n (%)
23 (13.5)147 (86.5)
University of applied science qualification or high school diploma n (%)25 (21.7)90 (78.3)
College or university degree n (%)25 (23.4)82 (76.6)
Dissertation n (%)9 (56.3)7 (43.8)
Employment statusFull time n (%)42 (19.5)173 (80.5)
Part time n (%)34 (26.0)97 (74.0)
Not employed n (%)8 (9.2)79 (90.8)
Income in €<1000 n (%)3 (6.8)41 (93.2)
1000–1999 n (%)16 (13.3)104 (86.7)
2000–2999 n (%)22 (26.5)61 (73.5)
3000–3999 n (%)16 (26.2)45 (73.8)
4000–5999 n (%)9 (23.1)30 (76.9)
6000–7999 n (%)4 (57.1)3 (42.9)
8000–9999 n (%)03 (100.0)
≥10,000 n (%)2 (50.0)2 (50.0)
Chronic diseases of participantsYes n (%)12 (10.3)104 (89.7)
No n (%)72 (23.3)237 (76.7)
Notes: Only statistically significant differences are depicted.
Table 6. Differences in PA between completers and non-completers.
Table 6. Differences in PA between completers and non-completers.
TimeVariableCompleterNon-CompletertpCohens d
(df)
M (SD)nM (SD)n
T0Total PA in h/week22.98427.53512.840.0050.29
(12.3)(16.4)(161.5)
drPA in h/week13.384153512.040.0430.2
(6.3)(8.9)(172.6)
Leisure time walking in h/week118412.33511.80.0740.18
(5.4)(7.5)(166.8)
Dog walking in h/week10.48411.53511.620.1070.16
(5.3)(7.2)(162.8)
T1Total PA in h/week21.38426.41102.230.0270.3
(11.7)(19.8)(181.7)
drPA in h/week12.584131100.430.6650.06
(6.9)(9.3)(192)
Leisure time walking in h/week10.38410.81100.470.6420.07
(5.8)(7.6)(192)
Dog walking in h/week9.78410.11100.440.6580.06
(5.8)(7.5)(192)
T2Total PA in h/week21.68423.8400.850.3970.16
(11.7)(16.5)(122)
drPA in h/week138411.740−1.040.302−0.2
(6.4)(7)(122)
Leisure time walking in h/week10.9849.640−1.170.243−0.23
(5.3)(6.2)(122)
Dog walking in h/week10.284940−1.150.251−0.24
(4.9)(5.9)(122)
Notes: PA, physical activity; drPA, dog-related PA.
Table 7. Changes in PA and walking behavior of participants who completed the study.
Table 7. Changes in PA and walking behavior of participants who completed the study.
T0T1T2T3
VariablenMMMMFpPartial
(SD)(SD)(SD)(SD)(df)h2
Total PA in h/week8422.921.321.621.40.860.4640.01
(12.3)(11.7)(11.7)(14.8)(3, 249)
drPA in h/week8413.312.51312.21.450.2290.02
(6.3)(6.9)(6.4)(6.4)(3, 249)
Leisure time walking in h/week841110.310.910.50.610.6110.01
(5.4)(5.8)(5.3)(6.3)(3, 249)
Dog walking in h/week8410.49.710.210.10.670.5720.01
(5.3)(5.8)(4.9)(6)(3, 249)
Notes: PA, physical activity; drPA, dog related PA.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hielscher-Zdzieblik, B.; Froboese, I.; Serpell, J.; Gansloßer, U. Impact of Dog’s Age and Breed on Dog Owner’s Physical Activity: A German Longitudinal Study. Animals 2022, 12, 1314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani12101314

AMA Style

Hielscher-Zdzieblik B, Froboese I, Serpell J, Gansloßer U. Impact of Dog’s Age and Breed on Dog Owner’s Physical Activity: A German Longitudinal Study. Animals. 2022; 12(10):1314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani12101314

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hielscher-Zdzieblik, Benedikt, Ingo Froboese, James Serpell, and Udo Gansloßer. 2022. "Impact of Dog’s Age and Breed on Dog Owner’s Physical Activity: A German Longitudinal Study" Animals 12, no. 10: 1314. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ani12101314

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop