Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41140253›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Social Cohesion, Mental Well-Being, and the Role of Smart Technology and Pet Ownership Among Social Housing Residents: Cross-Sectional Cohort Study.

Emmylou Rahtz, Andrew James Williams, Timothy J Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emmylou RahtzEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Peter Lanyon, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, United Kingdom, 44 1392 661000.ORCID 0000-0002-4309-0937
Andrew James WilliamsScottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2175-8836
Timothy J TaylorEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Peter Lanyon, Penryn Campus, Penryn, TR10 9FE, United Kingdom, 44 1392 661000.ORCID 0000-0002-2625-7408

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Smart technology has been shown to have varied effects on social cohesion and mental well-being. There has been very little research on associations between pet ownership and social cohesion and mental well-being. Objective: This study aimed to explore associations between social cohesion and mental well-being and ownership of different forms of smart technology, dogs, and cats in a sample of adult social housing occupants in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that collected data on people's living environment, health, and well-being, including the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and an 8-item social cohesion scale. Participants were social housing residents in Cornwall in the South West of the United Kingdom. We used cross-sectional regression analyses to explore associations between people's ownership of different forms of smart technology and pets, and their reported levels of social cohesion and mental well-being. Results: There were no statistically significant associations between social cohesion and ownership of either smart technology or pets. Unadjusted regressions for mental well-being showed an association with owning a smartphone. However, after adjusting for age, gender, and socioeconomic status, this effect was no longer significant. Those who owned any smart technology (b=1.76, 95% CI 0.06-3.45; P=.04) and those who owned a games console (b=2.39, 95% CI 0.59-4.19, P=.01) had significantly higher levels of mental well-being, after adjusting for age, gender, and socioeconomic status; the effect held after social cohesion was added to the model. Counterintuitively, owning two or more dogs was associated with lower levels of mental well-being (b=-2.12, 95% CI -4.06 to -0.19; P=.03) compared with owning no dogs, after adjusting for age, gender, socioeconomic status, and social cohesion. However, there were no significant differences in mental well-being related to cat ownership. Conclusions: Previous research suggests that the beneficial effects of smart technology are context-dependent, and our results support that. While we did not observe significant effects on social cohesion, owning any smart technology or a games console specifically was associated with well-being benefits. There are limited data on pet ownership and social cohesion or mental well-being: our data suggest there is no strong relationship with social cohesion but owning multiple dogs can have negative effects.

Indexed as

Mental HealthOwnershipPetsAdultAgedAnimalsCatsCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDogsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomgamingmental well-beingpet ownershipsmart technologysocial cohesionsocial housing

Identifiers

PMID41140253
PMCPMC12555080

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.