• Nepenthe@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    • Sample size of 170, which even the researchers admitted was low

    • First study done during the lockdowns, which they posited may have had a negative affect as people tried to cope with financial stress, sudden social isolation, and caring for a pet without ever leaving the house. It did, they found.

    • Second study taken post-lockdown, unable to compare depression and anxiety as they did not bother measuring those the first time (why not?)

    • Trained animals do provide a benefit, actually; friendly obedience and a relaxed personality found in support animals suggested to be a factor but they never measured that either I guess.

    • 95% report greater life consistency and a sense of love, so maybe pets are helpful for someone in vital need of emotional support, we don’t know.

    Overall, I think if they tried really, really hard, and I mean really put their minds to it, they could write a worse headline for such an ambiguous and unhelpful article.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d consider a sample size of 170 to be pretty large, if the sample was drawn with perfect randomness from the population. But this one wasn’t, it was self-selected. Also wasn’t a clinical trial, and while they seem to know what they’re doing with setting up the questionnaire, I would assume it would result in larger measurement error, which would need more samples to be able to correct for.

      Completely agree with you though - the conclusions that it seems reasonable to draw from this are ‘not much, really’. Seems to disagree with the results of a larger study by many of the same authors, too, which say that companion animals did result in a smaller decline in mental health during lockdown.

      https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239397