Cat caregivers’ perceptions, motivations, and behaviours for feeding treats: A cross sectional study
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 19, Issue: 1 January, Page: e0296011
2024
- 2Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
There is an abundance of research focusing on the nutritional needs of the cat, though aspects surrounding treat feeding have received far less attention. Feeding practices have the potential to cause nutrient imbalances and adverse health outcomes, including obesity. The objective of this study was to identify and describe the perceptions, motivations, and behaviours surrounding treats, and factors that influence treat feeding by cat caregivers. A 56-question online survey was disseminated to cat caregivers (n = 337) predominantly from Canada and the USA to collect data regarding caregiver and cat demographics, the pet-caregiver relationship, perceptions surrounding treats, and feeding practices and behaviours. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze the survey data. Caregivers had varying interpretations of the term ‘treat’ and how treats relate to the primary diet, and these perceptions appeared to influence the quantity of treats provided. Aspects relating to the human-animal bond were highlighted as an important factor in decisions and behaviours surrounding treat feeding in our results. Though the majority (224/ 337, 66%) of respondents indicated they monitor their pet’s treat intake, using an eyeball estimate was the most frequent (139/337, 41%) method reported to measure treats. Multivariable logistic regression results revealed feeding jerky, bones, dental treats, and table scraps in select frequencies were predictive of caregivers perceiving their cat as overweight/obese. Results provide valuable new insights to cat caregiver feeding practices and perceptions of treats and can be used to inform veterinary nutrition support to caregivers. More research is warranted to further our understanding and ensure that cats receive optimal nutrition and care.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85182092138&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296011; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38198455; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296011; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296011; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296011
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know