The role of pets in human and social service provisions: A panoramic view

Abstract Introduction: Pet ownership is common in the United States, yet companion animals are rarely considered in healthcare and social service systems. Although pets can enhance wellbeing and provide social and emotional support, they may also present barriers to care. Individuals may delay or forgo medical treatment, housing, or social services due to concern for their pets, particularly in the absence of temporary pet care options or pet-inclusive service protocols. This study examines how health and social service professionals and students perceive and address pet-related considerations in client and patient care. Methods: Between January and March 2024, we administered six anonymous, cross-sectional surveys to a convenience sample of 285 individuals in Colorado across six groups: emergency medical service providers, long-term and sub-acute care staff, human healthcare providers, medical students, social service providers, and social work students. Surveys included closed-ended questions assessing the frequency and impact of pet-related concerns in service provision, and open-ended items soliciting examples of provider experiences, perceived barriers, and needed resources. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and qualitative responses were summarized to contextualize quantitative trends. Results: Among 285 healthcare and social service providers across six professional groups, pet ownership significantly impacted patient care decisions. Healthcare providers reported that pet ownership affected treatment-seeking behaviors (61.5% of medical providers and 37.5% of social service providers encountered this monthly), caused service delays (61.5% of medical providers reported monthly delays), and led to treatment refusals (50% of medical providers and 26.2% of medical students reported monthly refusals). Over 60% of all provider groups agreed that pet ownership is an important factor in healthcare decision-making, with more than 66% acknowledging it complicates the decision-making process. Providers demonstrated confidence in identifying pet-related concerns (66.1–79.8% across groups) but reported significant educational gaps, with 85–100% of medical providers receiving little to no training about pet-related resources. Strong support was voiced for temporary pet care programs (53.8–80.6% across groups), and providers identified key needed resources, including resource databases, standardized protocols, and training on addressing pet-related barriers in treatment planning. Conclusions: Pet-related concerns influence client and patient decision-making in healthcare and social service settings. Despite the frequency of these concerns, providers lack training and access to systematic resources to address them. Integrating pet-related assessment into service delivery, expanding access to temporary pet care, and incorporating the human–animal bond into professional education represent critical steps toward more inclusive, person-centered care.