There is evidence that prioritizing pets' welfare can impact the health and well-being of their owners, especially when pet owners have a strong bond with their pet. This carries public health implications, particularly in a global public health emergency such as COVID-19. The study objective was to understand pet owners' consideration of their pets' welfare when making personal healthcare decisions specific to COVID-19. A large sample ( n = 1356) of adult pet owners in the U.S. completed an online survey in April and May of 2020, coinciding with the onset of social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Respondents were asked if they would delay or avoid testing or treatment for COVID-19 due to concern for their pets' welfare, and a follow-up question asked them to elaborate. Multinomial logistic regression models showed that attachment to pets and socioeconomic resources were important factors in pet owners' hypothetical decisions regarding testing and treatment for COVID-19. Qualitative analysis of responses to the follow-up question revealed explanations across three themes: (1) the need to find pet accommodation prior to seeking healthcare; (2) pet-related concerns; and, (3) human-related concerns. Pet owners often cited concern for their pets' welfare as a factor contributing to their decision making; participants' lack of a concrete plan for pet care was most commonly cited as the reason for their delay in seeking healthcare. Results from this study indicate that pet owners experience unique obstacles to accessing healthcare related to COVID-19, which has implications for future public health emergencies. Increased disease spread and prevalence of poor health outcomes could result if pet owners delay or avoid testing or treatment. Communities can benefit from a One Health/One Welfare approach to collaboration between human and animal health and service providers to reduce COVID-19 spread and secure the well-being of people and their pets.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore how Swedish police officers describe occupational knowledge. By learning more about how officers describe occupational knowledge, the study gives more insight about the types of information that they may be more likely to adopt in their occupational tasks.Design/methodology/approachIn this study, the author conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with Swedish police officers. I asked officers several open-ended questions about their everyday work life and professional experience.FindingsSwedish officers divide knowledge into two categories, which are theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. Theoretical knowledge is learned in the academy and is described as “black and white,” meaning that it is considered static and not applicable to what happens out in patrol. Practical knowledge is learned in the field from colleagues.Research limitations/implicationsPolice officers around the world have a wide range of requirements and training to become police officers. However, empirical studies have found that officers tend to use different types of information when performing policing tasks. Depending on how information is perceived and is taught, officers may respond differently to different types of knowledge, due to their evaluation of the validity of the knowledge.Originality/valueThe findings in this study support previous empirical studies on the area of policing and knowledge in two ways; first, this study argues that there is a categorization of knowledge among police officers. Second, this study suggests that officers view one occupational knowledge type as more theoretical and one as more practical.

No abstract

Objective Using a mixed‐methods design, we aimed to understand household dynamics and choices in hypothetical planning for child and pet care if an individual is faced with hospitalization for COVID‐19. Background As the COVID‐19 public health crisis persists, children and pets are vulnerable to caregiver hospitalization. Methods Bivariate associations from a large‐scale survey explore hypothetical options for dependent care‐planning. An open‐ended question regarding pet–child interactions is coded applying a grounded theory framework. Results Caregivers expect to rely on family and friends to care for children, especially young children, and pets if hospitalized. The presence of pets in the home has been predominately positive for children during the pandemic, suggesting benefits of alternative care options that keep children and pets together. Conclusions Relying on one's social network to care for dependents if caregivers become ill from COVID‐19 could place loved ones at risk for contracting the virus, which could present obstacles to arranging care plans, especially inclusive of pets and children. Implications The changing information regarding COVID‐19 warrants that families establish concrete care plans for dependent children and pets. The spread of COVID‐19 to the most vulnerable, such as grandparents and other family who may be expected to care for dependents, could create additional public health concerns.

PurposeSpecifically, the authors discuss three challenges that researchers—especially graduate students—often face: (1) access to adequate material and guidance for researchers; (2) the internal and external strains researchers may face, and (3) the limited conceptualization of research on sensitive topics or vulnerable populations. Although these three challenges may be present for many graduate students and junior scholars, it is important to acknowledge that scholars face many challenges beyond the ones discussed in this note.Design/methodology/approachThis note will specifically address challenges that arise for graduate students and junior scholars, and we suggest possible strategies to navigate this type of research.FindingsThe authors encourage comprehensive approaches taken by institutions, enacted via advocacy from the field. Professional organizations can create a valuable, ongoing forum for such discussions by including the topic of researcher trauma within workshops, discussion sessions, conference tracks, journals, and newsletters. Second, the topic of researcher trauma must be introduced early and often in graduate training, including planned meaningful coverage in methodology courses, textbooks, and professional training. Third, researchers at all levels should carefully reflect on how their own line of inquiry and their routine research practices could impart trauma.Originality/valueWhile ethical principles center on protecting human research participants, risks of trauma experienced by researchers are not consistently addressed in the context of methodological training or human-subjects internal review board and ethics committees' consideration. Although many researchers engage in work that can cause the researcher trauma, few studies address the experiences of researchers in depth, especially the experiences of graduate students or junior scholars.