Longitudinal associations between allostatic load, pet ownership, and socioeconomic position among U.S. adults aged 50+

It is hypothesized that pets provide benefits to human health by buffering the deleterious effects of stress, but varying exposure to chronic stress via social position is rarely considered in these conceptual and empirical models. Allostatic load is an index of biological and physical measures that represents cumulative wear and tear on the body via chronic stress exposure. In this study, we use the 2006–2016 waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative, longitudinal panel survey of adults aged 50+ in the United States, to test whether and to what extent pet ownership has an impact on allostatic load, and whether pet ownership moderates the effects of socioeconomic position on allostatic load. Linear mixed effects regression models revealed that pet owners had significantly lower allostatic load scores than those who do not own pets; however, after adjusting for socioeconomic position (i.e., wealth, education, race, ethnicity, gender, marital status), the effect of pet ownership was no longer significant. We estimated a series of models stratified by sociodemographic groups to test moderation effects. Among those who had a high school education, pet owners had lower allostatic load scores, whereas among those who had attended some college, pet owners had higher scores. Among those who were aged 80+, pet owners had higher scores than those who did not own pets. These findings suggest that the magnitude of the effect of pet ownership on allostatic load may not be sufficient to counteract experiences of high chronic stress as experienced by lower-status groups. Supporting the human-animal bond may contribute to improving older adult population health if paired with efforts to address the underlying causes of population health disparities

Social Support and Attachment to Pets Moderate the Association between Sexual and Gender Minority Status and the Likelihood of Delaying or Avoiding COVID-19 Testing

Sexual and gender minority individuals (SGM) face barriers to accessing COVID-19 testing and treatment services. Living with pets may pose an additional barrier due to concerns about pet welfare. This study investigates whether the relation between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding testing and treatment for COVID-19 varies as a function of attachment to pets and social support. Our sample consisted of 1453 adults (Mage = 39.4 years, 12.6% racial/ethnic minority; 21.8% SGM). We conducted simple and additive multiple moderation analyses to investigate the moderating effect of attachment to pets and social support on the relation between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding COVID-19 testing or treatment. Attachment to pets moderated the association between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding COVID-19 testing in the simple (β = 0.82, Z = 2.09, p = 0.04) and additive multiple moderation analyses (β = 0.82, Z = 2.05, p = 0.04). SGM participants were more likely than non-SGM participants to report that they would delay or avoid testing when they reported high attachment to their pet (β = 0.75, OR = 2.11, Z = 2.51, p = 0.01) and low (β = 0.75, OR = 2.12, Z = 2.48, p = 0.01) or moderate (β = 0.73, OR = 2.08, Z = 2.14, p = 0.03) levels of social support

Correction: The impact of pet ownership on healthcare access and utilization among people with HIV.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292658.]

The impact of pet ownership on healthcare access and utilization among people with HIV.

Though bonds with pets can be health-promoting for people with HIV (PWH), recent studies indicate that owning pets may complicate healthcare access, especially for those with fewer economic resources, poorer social support, and a strong human-animal bond. In this study, we make a case for considering pets to be an important element of the social environment that can influence healthcare access and utilization among PWH. Pet-owning PWH (n = 204) were recruited at healthcare and community sites throughout Florida as part of a larger survey study (the “Florida Cohort”). We developed a 12-item index of pet-related barriers to healthcare, which was designed to assess whether the participants experienced or anticipated any barriers to accessing and/or utilizing timely healthcare or health-related services due to pet caregiving or concerns about pet welfare. We estimated a series of regression models (negative binomial, logistic regression) to assess the effects of comfort from companion animals, human social support, healthcare needs, and sociodemographic characteristics on 1) the total number of pet-related healthcare barriers endorsed, 2) previously experienced pet-related healthcare barriers, and 3) anticipated pet-related healthcare barriers. Thirty-six percent of the sample reported at least one experienced or anticipated pet-related barrier to their healthcare; 17% reported previous healthcare barriers and 31% anticipated future healthcare barriers. Greater comfort from companion animals, greater healthcare needs, and poorer social support were associated with a greater probability of experiencing or anticipating any pet-related healthcare barriers. Those who identified racially as Black were less likely to anticipate future healthcare barriers than those who were White. Income was associated with pet-related healthcare barriers in all models. Given the importance of health maintenance for PWH and previous research suggesting pets may be an important emotional support for this population, social safety net programs and community partnerships that support multispecies families are strongly recommended

Originally published, uncorrected article.

Correction: The impact of pet ownership on healthcare access and utilization among people with HIV</p

Republished, corrected article.

Correction: The impact of pet ownership on healthcare access and utilization among people with HIV</p

Is a Wider Margin (2 cm vs. 1 cm) for a 1.01–2.0 mm Melanoma Necessary?

BackgroundThe current NCCN recommendation for resection margins in patients with melanomas between 1.01 and 2&nbsp;mm deep is a 1-2&nbsp;cm radial margin. We sought to determine whether margin width had an impact on local recurrence (LR), disease-specific survival (DSS), and type of wound closure.MethodsMelanomas measuring 1.01-2.0&nbsp;mm were evaluated at a single institution between 2008 and 2013. All patients had a 1 or 2&nbsp;cm margin.ResultsWe identified 965 patients who had a 1&nbsp;cm (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;302, 31.3&nbsp;%) or 2&nbsp;cm margin (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;663, 68.7&nbsp;%). Median age was 64&nbsp;years, and 592 (61.3&nbsp;%) were male; 32.5 and 48.7&nbsp;% of head and neck and extremity patients had a 1&nbsp;cm margin versus 18.9&nbsp;% of trunk patients (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001). LR was 2.0 and &nbsp;2.1&nbsp;% for a 1 and 2&nbsp;cm margin, respectively (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;not significant). Five-year DSS was 87&nbsp;% for a 1&nbsp;cm margin and 85&nbsp;% for a 2&nbsp;cm margin (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;not significant). Breslow thickness, melanoma on the head and neck, lymphovascular invasion, and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) status significantly predicted LR on univariate analysis; however, only location and SLNB status were associated with LR on multivariate analysis. Margin width was not significant for LR or DSS. Wider margins were associated with more frequent graft or flap use only on the head and neck (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.025).ConclusionsOur data show that selectively using a narrower margin of 1&nbsp;cm did not increase the risk of LR or decrease DSS. Avoiding a 2&nbsp;cm margin may decrease the need for graft/flap use on the head and neck