For a healthy baby, get a dog, or two
This may be a hard pill to swallow for all those worrywarts warning us about zoonotic diseases, but having a dog living inside the home apparently makes for a healthier infant.
A new study reported in the medical journal Pediatrics says infants living in households with dogs were healthier and had fewer ear infections than those without a dog.
The study, based on 397 children who lived in rural and suburban parts of Finland, found that contact with dogs and, to a lesser extent, cats, helped ward off respiratory tract infections during a baby’s first year.
Seems all that dirt and bacteria dogs bring inside might actually help build up the immune systems of babies.
“The children having dogs at home were healthier, they had less ear infections and they needed less antibiotics,” said Eija Bergroth, the study’s lead author and a pediatrician affiliated with Kuopio University Hospital in Kuopio, Finland.
Under one measure, children with dogs were reported as being healthy for about 73% of the time, compared with about 65% of children with no dog contact at home, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
Bergroth said that children who lived in households where dogs spent 18 or more hours a day outside showed the most healthy days, fewer fevers and the least use of antibiotics compared with babies with no dog at home.
One theory, she said, is that indoor-outdoor dogs bring more dirt and bacteria inside the home, allowing infants to build up immunities.
Bergroth’s study involved children who were born at Kuopio University Hospital in Finland between September 2002 and May 2005. The children’s parents were given weekly questionnaires from the time their babies were nine weeks old until they were 1 year old.
It’s not the first study to document the physical health benefits of shacking up with dogs. A study funded by the National Institutes of Health showed children exposed to two or more dogs or cats in their first year had lower chances of developing allergies of all kinds than children exposed to one or no pets.
Posted by jwoestendiek July 10th, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: allergies, antibiotics, bacteria, benefits, dogs, ear infections, Eija Bergroth, exposure, fevers, finland, health, health benefits, households, immune system, infants, infections, Kuopio University Hospital, pediatrics, pets, respiratory, study, zoonoses, zoonotic
Comments
Comment from gary
Time July 10, 2012 at 8:59 am
This is a classic example of the conundrum:
does association imply cause?
are children exposed to dogs healthier because of the dogs? or is the presence of a dog in the house a marker for parents who raise there kids differently?
Are they more likely to take there kids out into fresh air? or use less unnecessary antibiotics, or feed their kids a better diet? etc.
It would be difficult to do a randomized trial of dog or no dog and certainly difficult to do it blinded!
Comment from debbie
Time July 10, 2012 at 11:17 am
I wonder why we rely so much on experts and studies and graphs to tell us who are we are
And why we should want something..( 50 percent this..half of a graph of that…blah blah blah..
In our house , my mother and I really loved animals and taking in and saving strays, and my aunt and sister was more lukewarm to having animals around.. They Didn’t not like them, just didn’t have they type of love that my mother and I did for animals… that’s ok, no expert can tell ya what’s right or wrong about love
It just is. In my opinion an animal companion should be in the home because its loved… all the ‘benefits’ will come without studies and graphs … just smiles and laughter.. And that’s cool in anybody’s book..
Comment from Gina
Time July 10, 2012 at 11:23 pm
I think having a dog in the house can have more health benefits than just better immune system. Companionship of a dog for a child can give the self confidence to face other outside relationships.
Comment from Delese
Time July 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Cute baby and dog….
Comment from Tatyana
Time August 4, 2012 at 9:40 am
This is a very accurate! Indeed, when the house is an animal – and not necessarily the dog (or cat, or two 
, or hedgehog, or a night owl – I was a kid and it was), then the child becomes emotionally much healthier, he gets a lesson of unselfish love and he learns to give it away. And with physical diseases in animals it is easy to handle and prevent – now medicine has progressed.
Comment from Anonymous
Time July 10, 2012 at 8:13 am
8% difference? What was the error tolerance in this study? So basically having a dog makes *minimal* (if any) difference as far as health goes. Probably offset by the number of incidents of domestic dog bites, so you are probably better off NOT having a dog. Stupid study. Just let kids play outside more – no dog needed.