A Sequential Explanatory Study Examining the Buffering Effects of Human–Animal Interaction on Stress and Quality of Life among Work-from-Home Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Work-from-Home Employees’ Stress and Quality of Life
1.2. Benefits of Human–Animal Interaction
1.3. Conceptual Framework
1.4. Objectives of This Study
- Measure and compare stress levels between pet owners and non-pet owners during the lockdown period.
- Examine the overall QOL and its domains (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) among pet owners and non-pet owners.
- Analyze how HAI influences stress levels and quality of life specifically in the social domain, with a focus on understanding how pets may mitigate the negative impacts of social isolation.
2. Methodology
2.1. Research Design
2.2. Respondents and Participants
2.3. Research Instruments
2.4. Data Gathering and Ethical Considerations
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative Results
3.2. Qualitative Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Katela, K. Our Pandemic Year—A COVID-19 Timeline. Family Health, Yale Medicine, 9 March 2021. Available online: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-timeline (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Javed, B.; Sarwer, A.; Soto, E.B.; Mashwani, Z. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic’s impact on mental health. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2020, 35, 993–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knolle, F.; Ronan, L.; Murray, G.K. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A comparison between Germany and the UK. BMC Psychol. 2021, 9, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galea, S.; Merchant, R.M.; Lurie, N. The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing. JAMA Intern. Med. 2020, 180, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semo, B.W.; Frissa, S.M. The mental health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for sub-Saharan Africa. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2020, 13, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitorino, L.M.; Yoshinari, G.H.; Gonzaga, G.; Dias, I.; Pereira, J.P.L.; Ribeiro, I.M.G.; Franca, A.B.; Al-Zaben, F.; Koenig, H.G.; Trzesniak, C. Factors associated with mental health and quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. BJPsych Open 2021, 7, e103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gori, A.; Topino, E. Across the COVID-19 waves; Assessing temporal fluctuations in perceived Stress, post-traumatic symptoms, worry, anxiety and civic moral disengagement over one year of pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyland, P.; Shevlin, M.; Murphy, J.; McBride, O.; Fox, R.; Bondjers, K.; Karatzias, T.; Bentall, R.P.; Martinez, A.; Vallières, F. A longitudinal assessment of depression and anxiety in the Republic of Ireland before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2021, 300, 113905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z. Influence of working from home during the COVID-19 crisis and HR practitioner response. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 710517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Lucas, G.; Roll, S.C. Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 63, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, C.A.; Wallace, L.M.; Spurgeon, P.C.; Tramontano, C.; Charalampous, M. Construction and initial validation of the e-work life scale to measure remote e-working. Empl. Relat. 2019, 41, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baradaran, M.S.; Kelishadi, R. Impact of sedentary behavior on bodily pain while staying at home in COVID-19 pandemic and potential preventive strategies. Asian J. Sports Med. 2020, 11, e103511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finlay, J.M.; Kler, J.S.; O’Shea, B.Q.; Eastman, M.R.; Vinson, Y.R.; Kobayashi, L.C. Coping during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study of older adults across the United States. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 643807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iddi, S.; Obiri-Yeboah, D.; Aboh, I.K.; Quansah, R.; Owusu, S.A.; Enyan, N.I.E.; Kodom, R.V.; Nsabimana, E.; Jansen, S.; Ekumah, B.; et al. Coping strategies adapted by Ghanaians during the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown: A population-based study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogueji, I.A.; Okoloba, M.M.; Demoko-Ceccaldi, B.M. Coping strategies of individuals in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 41, 7493–7499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuart, J.; O’Donnell, K.; O’Donnell, A.; Scott, R.; Barber, B. Online social connection as a buffer of health anxiety and isolation during COVID-19. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2021, 24, 521–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, S.; Wills, T.A. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 310–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maturkanič, P.; Čergeťová, I.T.; Králik, R.; Hlad, L.; Roubalová, M.; Martin, J.G.; Judák, V.; Akimjak, A.; Petrikovičová, L. The phenomenon of social and pastoral service in eastern Slovakia and northwestern Czech Republic during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparison of two selected units of former Czechoslovakia in the context of the perspective of positive Solutions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murgaš, F.; Podzimek, M.; Petrovič, F.; Tirpáková, A.; Králik, R. The impact of religiosity on quality of life. Acta Missiologica 2023, 17, 169–186. [Google Scholar]
- McCune, S.; Kruger, K.A.; Griffin, J.A.; Esposito, L.; Freund, L.S.; Hurley, K.J.; Bures, R. Evolution of research into the mutual benefits of human–animal interaction. Anim. Front. 2014, 4, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossman, M.K. Effects of interactions with animals on human psychological distress. J. Clin. Psychol. 2017, 73, 761–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matchock, R.L. Pet ownership and physical health. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2015, 28, 386–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergen-Cico, D.; Smith, Y.; Wolford, K.; Gooley, C.; Hannon, K.; Woodruff, R.; Spicer, M.; Gump, B. Dog ownership and training reduces post-traumatic stress symptoms and increases self-compassion among veterans: Results of a longitudinal control study. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2018, 24, 1166–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janssens, M.; Eshuis, J.; Peeters, S.; Lataster, J.; Reijnders, J.; Enders-Slegers, M.J.; Jacobs, N. The pet-effect in daily life: An experience sampling study on emotional wellbeing in pet owners. Anthrozoös 2020, 33, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, E.; Pina, E.; Cunha, M. Dogs at the workplace: A multiple case study. Animals 2021, 11, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunjan, U.G.; Reddy, J. Why companion animals are beneficial during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Patient Exp. 2020, 7, 430–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Handlin, L.; Petersson, M. Self-soothing behaviors with particular reference to oxytocin release induced by non-noxious sensory stimulation. Front. Psychol. 2015, 5, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shoesmith, E.; Shahab, L.; Kale, D.; Mills, D.S.; Reeve, C.; Toner, P.; Santos De Assis, L.; Ratschen, E. The influence of human–animal interactions on mental and physical health during the first COVID-19 lockdown phase in the U.K.: A qualitative exploration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, J.; García, E.; Darder, P.; Argüelles, J.; Fatjó, J. The effects of the Spanish COVID-19 lockdown on people, their pets, and the human-animal bond. J. Vet. Behav. 2020, 40, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patag, K.J. Pandemic Bites Animal Shelters: More Rescues, Fewer Helping Hands, and Dwindling Donations. Philstar.com. Available online: https://bitly.ws/3gaqY (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Bjursell, C.; Bergmo-Prvulovic, I.; Hedegaard, J. Telework and lifelong learning. Front. Sociol. 2021, 6, 642277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shimura, A.; Yokoi, K.; Ishibashi, Y.; Akatsuka, Y.; Inoue, T. Remote work decreases psychological and physical stress responses, but full-remote work increases presenteeism. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 730969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirshkowitz, M.; Whiton, K.; Albert, S.M.; Alessi, C.; Bruni, O.; DonCarlos, L.; Hazen, N.; Herman, J.; Katz, E.S.; Kheirandish-Gozal, L.; et al. National Sleep Foundation’s sleep time duration recommendations: Methodology and results summary. Sleep Health 2015, 1, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antoun, M.; Edwards, K.M.; Sweeting, J.; Ding, D. The acute physiological stress response to driving: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinclair, R.R.; Cheung, J.H. Money matters: Recommendations for financial stress research in occupational health psychology. Stress Health 2016, 32, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wheatley, D. Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work Employ. Soc. 2016, 31, 567–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mache, S.; Servaty, R.; Harth, V. Flexible work arrangements in open workspaces and relations to occupational stress need for recovery and psychological detachment from work. J. Occup. Med. Toxicol. 2020, 15, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conradie, W.J.; de Klerk, J.J. To flex or not to flex? Flexible work arrangements amongst software developers in an emerging economy. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 17, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weitzer, J.; Papantoniou, K.; Seidel, S.; Klösch, G.; Caniglia, G.; Laubichler, M.; Bertau, M.; Birmann, B.M.; Jäger, C.C.; Zenk, L.; et al. Working from home, quality of life, and perceived productivity during the first 50-day COVID-19 mitigation measures in Austria: A cross-sectional study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2021, 94, 1823–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekpanyaskul, C.; Padungtod, C. Occupational health problems and lifestyle changes among novice working-from-home workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Saf. Health Work 2021, 12, 384–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjärntoft, S.; Hallman, D.M.; Mathiassen, S.E.; Larsson, J.; Jahncke, H. Occupational and individual determinants of work-life balance among office workers with flexible work arrangements. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giurge, L.M.; Bohns, V.K. 3 Tips to Avoid WFH Burnout. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/04/3-tips-to-avoid-wfh-burnout/ (accessed on 31 January 2022).
- La Torre, G.; de Leonardis, V.; Chiappetta, M. Technostress: How does it affect the productivity and life of an individual? Results of an observational study. Public Health 2020, 189, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarafdar, M.; Gupta, A.; Turel, O. The dark side of information technology use. Inf. Syst. J. 2013, 23, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molino, M.; Ingusci, E.; Signore, F.; Manuti, A.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Russo, V.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. Well-being costs of technology use during COVID-19 remote working: An investigation using the Italian translation of the technostress creators scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mubarak, F.; Suomi, R. Examining technostress in Nordic region and Indian subcontinent. Inj. Prev. 2016, 22, 364–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salanova, M.; Llorens, S.; Cifre, E. The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. Int. J. Psychol. 2012, 48, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tams, S.; Hill, K.; Guinea, A.; Thatcher, J.; Grover, V. NeuroIS—Alternative or complement to existing methods? Illustrating the holistic effects of neuroscience and self-reported data in the context of technostress research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2014, 15, 723–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bondanini, G.; Giorgi, G.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Andreucci-Annunziata, P. Technostress dark side of technology in the workplace: A scientometric analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Ollier-Malaterre, A.; Lu, C.Q. The impact of techno-stressors on work–life balance: The moderation of job self-efficacy and the mediation of emotional exhaustion. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 122, 106811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahni, D.J. Impact of COVID-19 on employee behavior: Stress and coping mechanism during WFH (Work-from-home) among service industry employees. Int. J. Oper. Manag. 2020, 1, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, P.; Slater, P. The effect of occupational stress and coping strategies on mental health and emotional well-being among university academic staff during the COVID-19 outbreak. Int. Educ. Stud. 2021, 14, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, J.A.; McCune, S.; Maholmes, V.; Hurley, K. Human-animal interaction research: An introduction to issues and topics. In How Animals Affect Us: Examining the Influence of Human-Animal Interaction on Child Development and Human Health; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 3–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ratschen, E.; Sheldon, T.A. Elephant in the room: Animal assisted interventions. BMJ 2019, 367, 16260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, K.E.; Herzog, H.; Gee, N.R. Variability in human-animal interaction research. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 7, 619600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saunders, J.; Parast, L.; Babey, S.H.; Miles, J.V. Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bert, F.; Gualano, M.R.; Camussi, E.; Pieve, G.; Voglino, G.; Siliquini, R. Animal assisted intervention: A systematic review of benefits and risks. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 2016, 8, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carr, D.; Friedmann, E.; Gee, N.R.; Gilchrist, C.; Sachs-Ericsson, N.; Koodaly, L. Dog walking and the social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on loneliness in older adults. Animals 2021, 11, 1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beetz, A.; Uvnäs-Moberg, K.; Julius, H.; Kotrschal, K. Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Powell, L.; Chia, D.; McGreevy, P.; Podberscek, A.L.; Edwards, K.M.; Neilly, B.; Guastella, A.J.; Lee, V.; Stamatakis, E. Expectations for dog ownership: Perceived physical, mental and psychosocial health consequences among prospective adopters. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gee, N.R.; Mueller, M.K.; Curl, A.L. Human–Animal interaction and older adults: An overview. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Applebaum, J.W.; Ellison, C.; Struckmeyer, L.; Zsembik, B.A.; McDonald, S.E. The impact of pets on everyday life for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 652610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin, F.; Bachert, K.E.; Snow, L.; Tu, H.W.; Belahbib, J.; Lyn, S.A. Depression, anxiety, and happiness in dog owners and potential dog owners during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, J.S.Q.; Fung, W.; Tan, B.S.W.; Low, J.Y.; Syn, N.L.; Goh, Y.X.; Pang, J. Association between pet ownership and physical activity and mental health during the COVID-19 ‘circuit breaker’ in Singapore. One Health 2021, 13, 100343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, J.; Pritchard, R.; Nottle, C.; Banwell, H. Pets, touch, and COVID-19: Health benefits from non-human touch through times of stress. J. Behav. Econ. Policy 2020, 4, 25–33. [Google Scholar]
- Aquino, I.; Daggay, M.; Cadangan, C.; Pebenito, D.; Rigor, N. The implementation of animal welfare act in Tuguegarao city. Int. J. Adv. Res. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2018, 7, 155–178. [Google Scholar]
- San Jose, R.; Magsino, P.J.; Bundalian, R. Factors affecting the knowledge, attitude, and practices of pet owners on responsible pet ownership in Magalang, Pampanga, Philippines: A cross-sectional study. Med. Sociol. Environ. Sci. 2020, 57, 182–195. [Google Scholar]
- Boncocan, K. PAWS Gets about 40 Reports of Animal Abuse Daily. Inquirer News. Available online: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/310613/paws-gets-about-100-reports-of-animal-abuse-daily/ (accessed on 12 January 2023).
- Francisco, K. Pets for Mental Wellness: How Dogs Play a Role in Healing, Therapy. Rappler. Available online: https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/185116-therapy-dog-mental-health-animal-assisted-interventions/ (accessed on 14 January 2023).
- Torralba, A. Doggone It, These Docs Are Too Cute. Lifestyle Inquirer. Available online: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/13125/doggone-it-these-docs-are-too-cute/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Cohen, S. Social relationships and health. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 676–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fournier, A.; Letson, E.; Berry, T.D. HAIS: Human-Animal Interaction Scale & Manual; Createspace Independent Publishing Platform2017: Scotss Valey, CA, USA.
- Frantz, A.; Holmgren, K. The work stress questionnaire (WSQ)—Reliability and face validity among male workers. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmgren, K.; Fjällström-Lundgren, M.; Hensing, G. Early identification of work-related stress predicted sickness absence in employed women with musculoskeletal or mental disorders: A prospective, longitudinal study in a primary health care setting. Disabil. Rehabil. 2012, 35, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmgren, K.; Dahlin-Ivanoff, S.; Björkelund, C.; Hensing, G. The prevalence of work-related stress, and its association with self-perceived health and sick-leave, in a population of employed Swedish women. BMC Public Health 2009, 9, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmgren, K.; Hensing, G.; Dahlin-Ivanoff, S. Development of a questionnaire assessing work-related stress in women—Identifying individuals who risk being put on sick leave. Disabil. Rehabil. 2009, 31, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holmgren, K.; Ivanoff, S.D. Women on sickness absence—Views of possibilities and obstacles for returning to work. A focus group study. Disabil. Rehabil. 2004, 26, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bowlby, J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds, some principles of psychotherapy (The 50th Maudsley lecture). Br. J. Psychiatry J. Ment. Sci. 1977, 130, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zilcha-Mano, S.; Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orientations. J. Res. Personal. 2012, 46, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNicholas, J.; Gilbey, A.; Rennie, A.; Ahmedzai, S.; Dono, J.A.; Ormerod, E. Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of evidence and issues. BMJ 2005, 331, 1252–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gender | Frequency | Percentage Distribution |
---|---|---|
Male | 101 | 26.20% |
Female | 110 | 28.57% |
LGBTQI++ | 88 | 22.90% |
Prefer not to say | 86 | 22.33% |
Total | 385 | 100% |
Occupation | Frequency | Percentage Distribution |
---|---|---|
Manager | 8 | 2.07% |
Professional | 223 | 57.92% |
Technician and associate professional | 48 | 12.46% |
Clerical support worker | 98 | 25.45% |
Service and sales worker | 5 | 1.29% |
Skilled agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers | 3 | 0.77% |
Total | 385 | 100% |
Pet | Frequency | Percentage Distribution |
---|---|---|
Dog | 209 | 54.28% |
Cat | 32 | 8.31% |
Both | 144 | 37.40% |
Total | 385 | 100% |
Gender | Frequency | Percentage Distribution |
---|---|---|
Male | 125 | 32.46% |
Female | 111 | 28.83% |
LGBTQI++ | 103 | 26.75% |
Prefer not to say | 46 | 11.94% |
Total | 385 | 100% |
Occupation | Frequency | Percentage Distribution |
---|---|---|
Manager | 5 | 1.29% |
Professional | 212 | 55.06% |
Technician and associate professional | 100 | 25.97% |
Clerical support worker | 60 | 15.58% |
Service and sales worker | 8 | 2.07% |
Total | 385 | 100% |
Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human–animal interaction (HAI) Score | 59.143 | 8.285 | 24 | 73 |
Mean | Standard Deviation | Interpretation | |
---|---|---|---|
Physical (Phy) | 63.655 | 17.544 | Very good |
Psychological (Psy) | 64.286 | 19.974 | Very good |
Social relationship (SR) | 67.684 | 22.937 | Very good |
Environment (Env) | 66.891 | 18.870 | Very good |
Overall (Ovr) | 65.909 | 20.013 | Very good |
Median | IQR | |
---|---|---|
PS owing to increased work load | 1.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to unclear goals at workplace | 1.000 | 1.000 |
PS owing to unclear work assignments | 1.000 | 0.000 |
PS owing to unclear leadership | 1.000 | 0.000 |
PS owing to conflicts at work | 1.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to involved in conflicts at work | 1.000 | 0.000 |
PS owing to supervisor not solved the conflicts | 1.000 | 0.000 |
Median | IQR | |
---|---|---|
PS owing to high demands on oneself at work | 1.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to engaged in one’s work | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to think about work after the working day | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to unclear leadership | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to conflicts at work | 1.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to involved in conflicts at work | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to supervisor not solved the conflicts | 1.000 | 2.000 |
Mean | Standard Deviation | Interpretation | |
---|---|---|---|
Physical (Phy) | 72.721 | 14.316 | Very good |
Psychological (Psy) | 66.180 | 14.660 | Very good |
Social relationship (SR) | 64.410 | 14.041 | Very good |
Environment (Env) | 74.826 | 15.137 | Very good |
Overall (Ovr) | 65.730 | 14.385 | Very good |
Median | IQR | |
---|---|---|
PS owing to increased work load | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to unclear goals at workplace | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to unclear work assignments | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to unclear leadership | 3.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to conflicts at work | 3.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to involved in conflicts at work | 3.000 | 3.000 |
PS owing to supervisor not solved the conflicts | 3.000 | 3.00 |
Median | IQR | |
---|---|---|
PS owing to high demands on oneself at work | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to engaged in one’s work | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to think about work after the working day | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to hard to set limits | 3.000 | 1.000 |
PS owing to high responsibility for one’s work | 2.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to working overtime | 3.000 | 2.000 |
PS owing to sleep disturbance on account of work | 2.000 | 1.000 |
U | p | Rank-Biserial Correlation (rrb) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
PS owing to high demands on oneself at work | 116,611 | <0.001 | 0.573 | |
PS owing to engaged in one’s work | 88,902 | <0.001 | 0.200 | |
Assumption Checks | ||||
Indistinct organization and conflicts | Individual demands and commitment | |||
Non-pet owner | Pet owner | Non-pet owner | Pet owner | |
Skewness | 0.052 | 1.971 | 0.345 | 0.687 |
Standard error of skewness | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.124 | 0.124 |
Kurtosis | −1.386 | 2.675 | −1.131 | −0.880 |
Standard error of kurtosis | 0.248 | 0.248 | 0.248 | 0.248 |
Shapiro–Wilk | 0.851 | 0.527 | 0.850 | 0.770 |
p-value of Shapiro–Wilk | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Domain | U | p | Rank-Biserial Correlation (rrb) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical (Phy) | 95137 | 1.000 | 0.284 | |||||||
Psychological (Psy) | 77,122 | 0.835 | 0.041 | |||||||
Social relationship (SR) | 64,048 | <0.001 | −0.136 | |||||||
Environment (Env) | 90,919 | 1.000 | 0.227 | |||||||
Overall (Ovr) | 72,480 | 0.298 | −0.022 | |||||||
Assumption Checks | ||||||||||
Skewness | Standard error of skewness | Kurtosis | Standard error of kurtosis | Shapiro–Wilk | p-value of Shapiro–Wilk | |||||
Overall (Ovr) | Non-pet owner | −0.021 | 0.124 | −1.268 | 0.248 | 0.948 | <0.001 | |||
Pet owner | −0.318 | 0.124 | −0.048 | 0.248 | 0.951 | <0.001 | ||||
Physical (Phy) | Non-pet owner | 0.156 | 0.124 | −1.138 | 0.248 | 0.954 | <0.001 | |||
Pet owner | −0.345 | 0.124 | 0.234 | 0.248 | 0.987 | 0.002 | ||||
Psychological (Psy) | Non-pet owner | −0.052 | 0.124 | −1.228 | 0.248 | 0.947 | <0.001 | |||
Pet owner | −0.419 | 0.124 | 0.021 | 0.248 | 0.979 | <0.001 | ||||
Social relationship (SR) | Non-pet owner | 0.060 | 0.124 | −1.103 | 0.248 | 0.963 | <0.001 | |||
Pet owner | −0.501 | 0.124 | −0.215 | 0.248 | 0.952 | <0.001 | ||||
Environment (Env) | Non-pet owner | −0.011 | 0.124 | −1.313 | 0.248 | 0.941 | <0.001 | |||
Pet owner | −0.525 | 0.124 | 0.269 | 0.248 | 0.976 | <0.001 |
Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | 95% Confidence Interval | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p | Lower | Upper | ||||||
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → | QOL—Overall | 1.774 | 1.394 | −1.273 | 0.203 | −4.506 | 0.958 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → | QOL—Overall | −5.789 | 1.079 | −5.367 | <0.001 | −7.902 | −3.675 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → | QOL—Phy | −2.961 | 1.224 | −2.419 | 0.016 | −5.359 | −0.562 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → | QOL—Phy | −5.749 | 0.979 | −5.875 | <0.001 | −7.667 | −3.831 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → | QOL—Psy | −4.092 | 1.379 | −2.968 | 0.003 | −6.794 | −1.390 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → | QOL—Psy | −5.442 | 1.025 | −5.307 | <0.001 | −7.452 | −3.432 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → | QOL—SR | −1.242 | 1.765 | −0.703 | 0.482 | −4.702 | 2.218 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → | QOL—SR | −6.198 | 1.388 | −4.464 | <0.001 | −8.919 | −3.477 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → | QOL—Env | −2.996 | 1.305 | −2.296 | 0.022 | −5.554 | −0.439 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → | QOL—Env | −4.528 | 1.013 | −4.470 | <0.001 | −6.513 | −2.542 |
Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | 95% Confidence Interval | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p | Lower | Upper | |||||||
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → HAI | → | QOL—Overall | −0.021 | 0.082 | −0.254 | 0.799 | −0.182 | 0.140 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → HAI | → | QOL—Overall | −0.147 | 0.142 | −1.031 | 0.303 | −0.425 | 0.132 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → HAI | → | QOL—Phy | −0.014 | 0.058 | −0.241 | 0.810 | −0.127 | 0.099 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → HAI | → | QOL—Phy | −0.097 | 0.120 | −0.812 | 0.417 | −0.332 | 0.137 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → HAI | → | QOL—Psy | −0.033 | 0.127 | −0.261 | 0.794 | −0.283 | 0.217 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → HAI | → | QOL—Psy | −0.233 | 0.170 | −1.367 | 0.172 | −0.567 | 0.101 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → HAI | → | QOL—SR | −0.015 | 0.065 | −0.236 | 0.814 | −0.144 | 0.113 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → HAI | → | QOL—SR | −0.108 | 0.158 | −0.687 | 0.492 | −0.417 | 0.201 |
PWS—Indistinct organization and conflicts | → HAI | → | QOL—Env | −0.043 | 0.166 | −0.259 | 0.795 | −0.369 | 0.283 |
PWS—Individual demands and commitment | → HAI | → | QOL—Env | −0.303 | 0.181 | −1.668 | 0.095 | −0.658 | 0.053 |
Themes | Sub-Themes | Sample Verbatim |
---|---|---|
Protective factors | Emotional support |
“It is like our pets know if we are sad or worried because they become clingier towards us”. —Participant 2 “During lockdown, there were times that I had mental breakdowns and experienced extreme sadness. Then Ryle will just come to me, then he will lift up my head while I am crying. He would really make sure that I pay attention and not to be sad”. —Participant 4 “Pets, to me, are like humans. I talk to them when I am sad. Especially during the pandemic, when I felt worried for my family because I could not return home. So if I am upset, I talk to them, and they just stare at me as if they are listening to me. And the experience of having someone listen to you without passing judgement was quite comforting. So certainly, my dogs definitely helped me a lot during the lockdown period. I felt I had a companion”. —Participant 10 |
Stress relievers |
“My pets’ presence helped me feel relaxed. Whenever I was stressed at work or even because of doing household chores, I felt relaxed just by seeing them or playing with them. My pets relieved my stress”. —Participant 3 “My pet helped a lot in my mental health during the pandemic. Whenever I feel stressed because of work, I would just spend some time petting her and it would already comfort me”. —Participant 7 | |
Reinforcing factor |
Health-related problems of pets |
“During lockdown, there was no resident veterinarian here in our province. Unfortunately, my cat got sick because of a feline virus, and I did not know what to do to her. I was really stressed, and I really panicked because I thought I would lose her”. —Participant 5 “There was a time when Suga (dog) suddenly lost his appetite for two days. Of course, I panicked because the veterinarian near our place was not always accessible. So, my other option was to bring him to the veterinarian in the next city which was a little further away from where I lived. Unfortunately, I did not know how to drive, and my father, who drove, was a senior citizen who was also not permitted to go out. There was no means of transportation to get him to the veterinarian. It was a great challenge for me as a pet owner”. —Participant 9 |
Pet loss |
“To be honest, all I recall about the pandemic is the cat I lost. It was quite difficult for me because I couldn’t do anything to treat her (the cat) for the feline virus. So I was quite depressed when I lost her. I understand that pet death is a part of being a pet owner, and their loss is extremely difficult. But the pain will never be greater than the happiness that she brought into my life”. —Participant 6 |
Themes | Sub-Themes | Sample Verbatim |
---|---|---|
Psychological | Source of motivation to Work harder | “If I did not have any pets, I would not have any motivation. It was because of them that I became motivated to work harder so I could earn more to sustain their needs, and to expand our house to give them enough space to sleep in. Without them, I don’t think I would be able to work hard enough to have my own house”. —Participant 1 “I must work hard for my pet. I feed her high-quality foods, and her shampoo is even more expensive than mine. I want to provide for her needs, which is why I feel motivated to work harder so I can buy anything she needs or wants”. —Participant 5 |
Became a more responsible person | “I believe I became more responsible after becoming a pet owner since I had to find ways in order to sustain their needs”. —Participant 2 “I became more responsible since I cannot be lenient because my pets rely on me. If I lived alone, I could get up at any time, but because I have pets, I need to get up early to walk them. They are also like human beings. They require food, water, and care”. —Participant 7 | |
Gave purpose and meaning In life | “My pets were a big help in my recovery. During the pandemic, I was clinically diagnosed with depression. Because of the medications, I spent much of my time in my bed sleeping. But because of my pets, I was motivated to go out and walk them in our backyard and prepare their food since I could not just leave them alone. Then I noticed they were always following me wherever I went, and that is when I realized and decided to cope because no one would look after them. That is why my dogs became my motivation for fighting and feeling driven to deal with my depression”. —Participant 3 “My pet brought meaning to my life. It is a pleasant and fulfilling feeling for me to know that I’m providing him with the greatest life possible. Because, as a parent, you feel good when you see your child happy and healthy, right? I feel the same way about my pet. I am happy when I see my pet happy and healthy. That is why it has become one of my life’s purposes to provide him with a fulfilling life, knowing that my pet’s life is short”. —Participant 9 | |
Physical | Being physically active | “Our pets actually helped us bond during the pandemic. At that time, we were always bored because you know, there was nothing much to do aside from work and household chores. So there were times when we would just talk and play with our pets, and then my parents would join us. So our pets became a way for us to spend more time together as a family”. —Participant 2 “During the pandemic, there were just three of us at home. Me, my father, and my dog. So, when we had nothing to do, I would play with my dog. Then my father would see us and think we were funny. So, in a sense, my father and I got to do something together during the pandemic to pass the time with the help of our dog”. —Participant 10 |
Social | Improves social relationship | “Our pets actually helped us bond during the pandemic. At that time, we were always bored because you know, there was nothing much to do aside from work and household chores. So there were times when we would just talk and play with our pets, and then my parents would join us. Our pets became a way for us to spend more time together as a family”. —Participant 2 “During the pandemic, there were just three of us at home: me, my father, and my dog. So, when we had nothing to do, I would play with my dog. Then my father would see us and think we were funny. So, in a sense, my father and I got to do something together during the pandemic to pass the time with the help of our dog”. —Participant 10 |
Serves as a companion | “Since the pandemic, I started working from home. Since then, Vanilla (the dog) and I have become closer. So she would always follow me while I was working. And I am happy about that, because I never felt alone while isolated at the time”. —Participant 4 “My dog would constantly follow me wherever I went. Then, during the pandemic, I tried to play the ukulele again. So, my dog was simply staring at me as I played. It was as if he was my audience, enjoying the music. That is why I never felt alone because of Suga (the dog)”. —Participant 9 | |
Helps with social skills | “My dogs helped me learn how to socialize. Because pets, like humans, have diverse personalities. There are shy pets, animals that prefer to be alone, and pets with cheerful personalities. So, you know, I have to be sensitive to their attitude in order to interact with them effectively. They are similar to people with whom you must interact. So, in some ways, I am able to apply the techniques I use with my pets to the people I engage with. Because of this, I believe my social skills have improved”. —Participant 8 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Quing, K.A.C.; Baudin, J.S.P.; Maaliw, R.R., III. A Sequential Explanatory Study Examining the Buffering Effects of Human–Animal Interaction on Stress and Quality of Life among Work-from-Home Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines. COVID 2024, 4, 531-556. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4040036
Quing KAC, Baudin JSP, Maaliw RR III. A Sequential Explanatory Study Examining the Buffering Effects of Human–Animal Interaction on Stress and Quality of Life among Work-from-Home Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines. COVID. 2024; 4(4):531-556. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4040036
Chicago/Turabian StyleQuing, Karen Anne C., Jomar Saif P. Baudin, and Renato R. Maaliw, III. 2024. "A Sequential Explanatory Study Examining the Buffering Effects of Human–Animal Interaction on Stress and Quality of Life among Work-from-Home Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines" COVID 4, no. 4: 531-556. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4040036