Explore the vast range of titles available.

The nomenclature used to describe animals working in roles supporting people can be confusing. The same term may be used to describe different roles, or two terms may mean the same thing. This confusion is evident among researchers, practitioners, and end users. Because certain animal roles are provided with legal protections and/or government-funding support in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to clearly define the existing terms to avoid confusion. The aim of this paper is to provide operationalized definitions for nine terms, which would be useful in many world regions: “assistance animal”, “companion animal”, “educational/school support animal”, “emotional support animal”, “facility animal”, “service animal”, “skilled companion animal”, “therapy animal”, and “visiting/visitation animal”. At the International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ) conferences in 2018 and 2020, over 100 delegates participated in workshops to define these terms, many of whom co-authored this paper. Through an iterative process, we have defined the nine terms and explained how they differ from each other. We recommend phasing out two terms (i.e., “skilled companion animal” and “service animal”) due to overlap with other terms that could potentially exacerbate confusion. The implications for several regions of the world are discussed.

The use of animals in various assistive, therapeutic, and emotional support roles has contributed to the uncoordinated expansion of labels used to distinguish these animals. To address the inconsistent vocabulary and confusion, this article proposes a concise taxonomy for classifying assistance animals. Several factors were identified to differentiate categories, including (1) whether the animal performs work or tasks related to an individual's disability; (2) the typical level of skill required by the animal performing the work or task; (3) whether the animal is used by public service, military, or healthcare professionals; (4) whether training certifications or standards are available; and (5) the existence of legal public access protections for the animal and handler. Acknowledging that some category labels have already been widely accepted or codified, six functional categories were identified: (1) service animal; (2) public service animal; (3) therapy animal; (4) visitation animal; (5) sporting, recreational, or agricultural animal; and (6) support animal. This taxonomy provides a clear vocabulary for use by consumers, professionals working in the field, researchers, policy makers, and regulatory agencies.

Dogs perform a variety of integral roles in our society, engaging in work ranging from assistance (e.g., service dogs, guide dogs) and therapy to detection (e.g., search-and-rescue dogs, explosive detection dogs) and protection (e.g., military and law enforcement dogs). However, success in these roles, which requires dogs to meet challenging behavioral criteria and to undergo extensive training, is far from guaranteed. Therefore, enhancing the selection process is critical for the effectiveness and efficiency of working dog programs and has the potential to optimize how resources are invested in these programs, increase the number of available working dogs, and improve working dog welfare. In this paper, we review two main approaches for achieving this goal: (1) developing selection tests and criteria that can efficiently and effectively identify ideal candidates from the overall pool of candidate dogs, and (2) developing approaches to enhance performance, both at the individual and population level, via improvements in rearing, training, and breeding. We summarize key findings from the empirical literature regarding best practices for assessing, selecting, and improving working dogs, and conclude with future steps and recommendations for working dog organizations, breeders, trainers, and researchers.

Structured as a second-person narrative directed to the dead friend, this story at times reads like a flight of ideas exposing the narrator's struggle to find her footing. “Since I first heard about your death”, she confesses, “haven’t I often felt like someone living with one foot in madness.” Only recently has there been a growing interest in the welfare and well-being of these animals and the effect of the work on the animals themselves.” [...]the passing in 2000 of “Robby's Law” in the USA, dogs used by the military were routinely destroyed at the end of service. Surely it is time for a thoughtful response from health-care organisations so that policies are in place to care for hospital dogs and other service animals in the long term.

Autism-Assistance Dogs (AADs) are highly-skilled service animals trained primarily to ensure the safety of an autistic child by preventing elopement and mitigating ‘meltdowns’. Although anecdotal accounts and case-studies have indicated that AADs confer benefits above and beyond safety, empirical support anchored in validated clinical, behavioral, and physiological measures is lacking. To address this gap, we studied children and their families before and after receiving a well-trained AAD using a within-subject, repeated-measures design. Notably, this study is the first to assess change in a biomarker for chronic stress in both autistic children and their parents. Final analyses included pre-/post-AAD data from 11 triads (parent/handler-dog-child) demonstrating significantly positive psychosocial and biobehavioral effects of AADs.

Beyond the functional tasks that assistance dogs are trained for, there is growing literature describing their benefits on the psychosocial health and wellbeing of their handlers. However, this research is not only widely disparate but, despite its growth, has not been reviewed since 2012. Our objective was to identify, summarize, and methodologically evaluate studies quantifying the psychosocial effects of assistance dogs for individuals with physical disabilities. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted across seven electronic databases. Records were independently screened by two authors. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed outcomes from guide, hearing, medical, or mobility service dogs, if they collected original data on handlers’ psychosocial functioning, and if the outcome was measured quantitatively with a validated, standardized measure. Studies on psychiatric service dogs, emotional support dogs, and pet dogs were excluded. Of 1,830 records screened, 24 articles were identified (12 publications, 12 theses) containing 27 studies (15 cross-sectional, 12 longitudinal). Studies assessed the effects of mobility (18), hearing (7), guide (4), and medical (2) assistance dog partnerships with an average sample size of N = 83. An analysis of 147 statistical comparisons across the domains of psychological health, quality of life, social health, and vitality found that 68% of comparisons were null, 30% were positive in the hypothesized direction, and 2% were negative. Positive outcomes included significant effects of having an assistance dog on psychological wellbeing, emotional functioning, self-esteem, and vitality. However, it is of note that several methodological weaknesses of the studies make it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions, including inadequate reporting and a failure to account for moderating or confounding variables. Future research will benefit from stronger methodological rigor and reporting to account for heterogeneity in both humans and assistance dogs as well as continued high-quality replication.

Previous research suggests that dogs can detect when humans are experiencing stress. This study tested whether baseline and stress odours were distinguishable to dogs, using a double-blind, two-phase, three-alternative forced-choice procedure. Combined breath and sweat samples were obtained from participants at baseline, and after a stress-inducing (mental arithmetic) task. Participants’ stress was validated with self-report and physiological measures recorded via a Biopac MP150 system. Thirty-six participants’ samples were presented to four dogs across 36 sessions (16, 11, 7 and 2 sessions, respectively). Each session consisted of 10 Phase One training trials and 20 Phase Two discrimination trials. In Phase One, the dog was presented with a participant’s stress sample (taken immediately post-task) alongside two blanks (the sample materials without breath or sweat), and was required to identify the stress sample with an alert behaviour. In Phase Two, the dog was presented with the stress sample, the same participant’s baseline sample (taken pre-task), and a blank. Which sample (blank, baseline, or stress) the dog performed their alert behaviour on was measured. If dogs can correctly alert on the stress sample in Phase Two (when the baseline sample was present), it suggests that baseline and stress odours are distinguishable. Performance ranged from 90.00% to 96.88% accuracy with a combined accuracy of 93.75% (N trials = 720). A binomial test (where probability of success on a single trial was 0.33, and alpha was 0.05) showed that the proportion of correct trials was greater than that expected by chance ( p < 0.001). Results indicate that the physiological processes associated with an acute psychological stress response produce changes in the volatile organic compounds emanating from breath and/or sweat that are detectable to dogs. These results add to our understanding of human-dog relationships and could have applications to Emotional Support and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) service dogs.

The integration of a service dog can have numerous benefits for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, although integration takes place within a family, little is known about the dynamics of these benefits on the family microsystem. Thus, the aim of our study was to propose a more systemic perspective, not only by investigating the benefits of SD integration, but also by exploring the relationships between improvements in children with ASD, parents’ well-being, parenting strategies and the quality of the child-dog relationship. Twenty parent-child with ASD dyads were followed before, as well as 3 and 6 months after service dog integration. At each stage, parents completed an online survey which included: the Autism Behavior Inventory (ABI-S), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y), the Parenting Stress Index Short Version (PSI-SF), the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS) and the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire (PSDQ). First, repeated measure one-way ANOVAs revealed that both children’s ASD symptoms and parents’ anxiety decreased significantly after service dog integration. Additionally, Spearman correlations revealed that the more ASD symptoms decreased, the more parent’s anxiety and parenting stress also decreased. Second, the quality of the child-dog relationship appeared to contribute to those benefits on both children’s ASD symptoms and parents’ well-being. Interestingly, parenting strategies seemed to adapt according to these benefits and to the quality of the child-dog relationship. Through a more systemic perspective, this study highlighted that the integration of a service dog involved reciprocal and dynamic effects for children with ASD and their parents, and shed new light on the processes that may underlie the effects of a service dog for children with ASD.

Service dogs, trained to assist people with disabilities, are known to impact their human partners’ social experiences. While service dogs can act as a “social bridge,” facilitating greater social connection under certain circumstances, many service dog partners also encounter challenges in social settings because of the presence of their service dog – despite legal protections. Among the most common challenges reported are experiences of stigma, discrimination, and access or service denials. This preregistered integrative review sought to synthesize empirical, theoretical, and legal literature to understand better the social experiences reported by service dog partners in the United States, including (1) civil rights experiences; (2) experiences of stigma and discrimination; and (3) broader social experiences. Following database searches and article screening, a total of N = 43 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Analyses were conducted in two stages: first, synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings to explore the magnitude of social experiences reported by empirical articles and second, narrative synthesis to integrate findings across all article types. Analyses identified three themes: Adverse Social Experiences , Contributing Factors , and Proposed Solutions . Overall, we found consistent reports of stigma, discrimination, and access denials for service dog handlers. Additionally, these adverse experiences may be more common for service dog partners with disabilities not externally visible (i.e., invisible disabilities such as diabetes or substantially limiting mental health conditions). This integrative review highlights a pattern of social marginalization and stigmatization for some service dog partners, exacerbated by inadequate legal protection and widespread service dog fraud. These findings have implications for the individual well-being of people with disabilities partnered with service dogs and highlight a need for collective efforts to increase inclusion and access. Effective solutions likely require a multi-component approach operating at various socio-ecological levels.