{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03147128245476003, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011014948859166011, 'mean_word_length': 5.144927536231884, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Could pets be of help in achieving health literacy? A media analysis demonstration study.

This paper asks whether, when seeking to reach the public, interest in the health of pets merits consideration. Our data set consisted of 128 items from Canadian media coverage, 1996-2006, that dealt with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) as well as with cats, dogs or both. Three main messages regarding pet health and human health were identified: 'do not worry', 'do worry' and 'be cautious'. A minority of articles did not convey a pet health message or a human health message (6%), and contradictory messages regarding human and animal health frequently occurred (32%). While we did not assess how members of the public actually received or interpreted these messages, media coverage dealing with pets does appear to have the potential to influence people. Media reports of British cats being harmed by BSE, in fact, may have influenced public views worldwide. Thus, professionals should give careful consideration to pets when conveying health information. Nevertheless, we do not suggest pet health information substitute for human health information. Rather, interest in pets may provide an opportunity to complement and to reinforce communication about human health.