Dog-walking can be hazardous for seniors, study suggests |

Dog-walking can be hazardous for seniors, study suggests

The Washington Post
Mr. Slobbers, a pit bull mix, walking on a path in Penn Hills. The stray dog was rescued by Brittney Norris and Elizabeth Taylor.

Dogs need to go on walks, and walking is good exercise for older adults. Seniors who combine the two – by walking a dog – are healthier than people who don’t, according to some research.

But a new study by University of Pennsylvania researchers offers a cautionary note. Strolling with a leashed dog, it says, “imparts a significant and rising injury risk in older adults.”

Between 2004 and 2017, it found, bone fractures associated with walking leashed dogs more than doubled among U.S. residents 65 and older. Nearly eight in 10 who suffered fractures were women, and the most commonly broken bones were hips, wrists and upper arms.

The dog-walking fractures were reported in a public database published by the U.S. Consumer Products Commission, which records injuries reported at a nationally representative sample of about 100 emergency rooms nationwide. The number, which increased from 1,671 in 2004 to 4,396 in 2017, rose at a rate significantly higher than the overall number of fractures did, said co-author Jaimo Ahn, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery at Penn Medicine.

Just why is unclear, though the senior population has grown as a percentage of the U.S. population. But Ahn said he thinks other factors may be driving the increase. Baby boomers are more active than previous generations of seniors, he said. And though he said he knows of no data that quantifies this, he believes health-care providers are increasingly suggesting dog ownership as one way to improve health.

“We make all these recommendations about pets, and yet we don’t really understand if there are potential negative implications,” Ahn said. “There are things we should be aware of before saying, ‘Hey, you should get a dog and take your dog for a walk.’ “

While a growing body of research is finding correlations between pet ownership and health and happiness, this area of study is new, and many studies lack robust sample sizes or controls. Some researchers say findings about the downsides of pet ownership get too little attention.

The University of Pennsylvania researchers, whose study was published Thursday in JAMA Surgery, focused only on seniors, a group Ahn said they figured would be most vulnerable to this sort of injury, and for whom broken bones can be particularly insidious.

People over 65 who fracture their hips have a 20 to 30 percent chance of dying within a year, or “higher than if you have a mild heart attack or get diagnosed with a mild cancer,” Ahn said. That may be because frailer people are more likely to fall, he said.

Ahn emphasized that the study is not meant to discourage dog ownership – or dog-walking – among seniors. But he said health-care providers should discuss the risks with patients, and older people thinking about dog ownership should talk about the idea with friends, family and others who know them and their lifestyles well. Dog training is also important, he said.

“We occasionally see patients who are seemingly doing a good thing – trying to be active, taking their pet out and then having an accident they never anticipated,” Ahn said. “People go skiing and think they might get injured. But this is kind of surprising to them, and it turns their life upside down.”

Categories: News | Health Now | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.