Peer Review Information for Service Dogs and Veterans With Ptsd
Introduction
Military veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are increasingly seeking out complementary therapies such as psychiatric service dogs. PTSD is characterized past intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in noesis and mood, and alterations in arousal and anxiety (1). PTSD affects an estimated vi–14% of post-nine/11 military veterans returning from deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan (two, three) and is frequently linked to suicidal behavior (4), major depression (5), and substance corruption (vi). Unfortunately, successful treatment of PTSD remains a challenge and electric current testify-based treatments for PTSD often have high dropout and not-response rates (7–nine). As a complement to evidence-based treatment, many military veterans are seeking out psychiatric service dogs to address their daily PTSD symptoms.
Psychiatric service dogs for PTSD are a specialized type of service domestic dog specifically trained to perform a multifariousness of tasks designed to mitigate the symptoms of PTSD. In the The states, a service dog must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability one. For individuals with PTSD these tasks may include responding to the veteran's feet, "watching" the veteran's dorsum in public, and waking them upward from nightmares. If the domestic dog is trained to practise this chore and is under command of the handler, it is permitted to accompany persons with disabilities in virtually public places. There are no specific tests required to authorize equally a service domestic dog. Regardless of whether a service dog is initially trained by the veteran themselves, a service dog organization, or a third-political party trainer, most veterans maintain the service dog'southward preparation later on placement in the dwelling for optimum awarding.
Between the system and the military veteran, a variety of training methods could be used to maintain a service dog'south reliability in performing their trained tasks. These training methods could include both specific techniques rooted in operant conditioning theory and specific interactions that may be rooted in a particular way to reinforce a specific relationship with the service dog. Operant conditioning includes four quadrants that can exist used in conjunction: positive reinforcement, positive penalty, negative reinforcement, and negative penalty. Positive reinforcement, or reward-based training, is the improver of a rewarding stimuli (i.e., reinforcers) to increase the likelihood of the behavior (i.eastward., response) occurring once again (e.thousand., giving a dog a treat after it sits). Positive punishment, or aversive-based training, is the addition of an aversive stimuli to decrease the likelihood of the behavior occurring once more (due east.g., jerking on the leash when a dog pulls). Negative reinforcement is the removal of a punishing or aversive stimulus (i.e., a loud noise or pain) to increment the likelihood of the behavior occurring again (e.g., releasing pressure level on the collar when the domestic dog is at your side). Negative penalty is when a rewarding stimuli are removed to decrease the likelihood of the beliefs occurring again (e.thou., removing attention when a dog jumps). Two additional types of training styles are also present in working canis familiaris and service dog organizations: and then-called authorisation-based (10) and bail-based training (eleven). Authority-based training emphasizes the conventionalities that the handler can found a superior position over the service canis familiaris to aid with preparation (due east.k., always eating before a dog or alpha gyre). Bond-based grooming emphasizes the belief that service dogs are best trained past the handler establishing a close bond with their dog (e.g., sharing food with the dog or co-sleeping).
Research suggests that grooming methods can impact indicators of canine welfare. The employ of aversive preparation methods (e.yard., positive penalisation) has been institute to exist related to reduced domestic dog welfare such equally stress behaviors during training, elevated cortisol, and problem behaviors such as fearfulness and aggression (12–fourteen). On the contrary, the use of positive reinforcement methods alone has previously been associated with lower dog fear and aggression than other methods (12). Current knowledge on outcomes related to either positive or aversive preparation methods is express to companion, police force, or laboratory dogs. No previous studies, to our knowledge, have investigated the clan betwixt grooming methods on canine beliefs in psychiatric service dogs.
In addition to the effects of training on service dog behavior or welfare, the handler'due south psychological status may too have an effect on service dogs. For example, a longitudinal report plant that owner symptoms of depression and PTSD predicted the development of behavioral issues (aggression, separation anxiety, and attention-seeking behaviors) in search & rescue dogs (15). Additionally, a cantankerous-exclusive study institute higher assailment in cocker spaniels endemic past emotionally unstable owners (16). Finally, a contempo study as well found a v-fold increase in the use of aversive training methods in men with moderate depression (17). Currently, the potential relationship betwixt the PTSD symptom severity of military veterans and the behavior of their psychiatric service dogs are unknown. It is important to decide and understand this relationship to raise the welfare of psychiatric service dogs.
Finally, the human-fauna bail between a service dog and handler should be mutually beneficial to both the service dog and the handler (18). For handlers, the human being-creature bond has previously been found to be associated with mental, social, and physiological benefits for pet owners (xix). For dogs, more than strongly bonded pet owners are likewise near probable to walk their dogs, seek preventative care, and follow wellness-care recommendations from their veterinarians (20, 21). The bond has previously been shown to be impacted by human attitudes and personality (22), but, to our cognition, no study has investigated the relationship between training techniques, PTSD severity, and dog behavior on the human-animate being bond between armed forces veterans and their service dogs.
The objective of this inquiry was to explore the associations between reported employ of training methods, PTSD severity, dog beliefs, and the human-fauna bond among a population of war machine veterans and their psychiatric service dogs. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that higher reported employ of aversive training methods (i.e., positive punishment or authorization) would be associated with higher perceived negative outcomes (due east.g., less closeness, more fear, and more aggression), while higher reported use of positive training methods (i.e., positive reinforcement or bail-based) would be associated with higher perceived positive outcomes (e.g., more than closeness, more attention, more trainability). Additionally, we hypothesized that higher PTSD severity would be associated with higher perceived negative outcomes.
Materials and Methods
The written report protocol was approved by the Purdue University Human Research Protection Programme Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol 1607017967). No interactions occurred between the research team and service dogs during the study, therefore we received a waiver from Purdue University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Commission (IACUC).
Participants
Participants were recruited from K9s For Warriors (Ponte Vedra, Florida, USA), an Assistance Canis familiaris International (ADI) accredited, non-profit organization that provides service dogs to military veterans across the United States of America. Participants were armed services veterans who received a service dog from K9s For Warriors. Our inclusion criteria were (1) military service subsequently September 11, 2001, (2) a community diagnosis of PTSD or coming together the clinical cutoff on the validated PTSD Checklist [PCL; (23)] (3) honorable belch or current honorable service, (4) no history of or current substance abuse, (5) no conviction of any crime confronting animals, and (six) no more than ii pet dogs currently in the home.
All participants attended a 3-week placement course at K9s For Warriors consisting of a prepare of standardized training and dog handling teaching. Veterans were instructed to use a combination of reward (e.g., positive reinforcement) and correction (east.g. positive punishment) based grooming and complete 120 h of training with their service dog over the 3-week flow. Preparation methods were matched to the needs of the individual canis familiaris based on cess from experienced dog trainers. Prior to the grade, all dogs had been screened for temperament and trained for at least 60 h using operant workout with positive reinforcement and leash corrections. The organization also abides with ADI minimum standards for assistance dogs including training for at least 3 disability-related tasks, basic obedience skills (i.e., downward, call back), and appropriate public behavior (i.e., no signs of assailment, adequate greeting behaviors, appropriate attention seeking, etc.) (24).
Process
Participants were recruited betwixt January and May of 2016 via an initial email and attached flyer which included detailed information well-nigh study participation. Following voluntary informed consent, participation consisted of completing a 10–15 min online survey. Upon completion of this survey, participants chose betwixt receiving $20 in greenbacks or a $xx Amazon gift carte du jour in remuneration (55% chose amazon gift carte du jour and 45% chose cash). Potential participants received upwardly to 3 follow-up email reminders. Of 244 veterans with a service dog contacted, 111 (45%) participated in the online survey.
Measures
Demographics
Participants were asked to report their historic period, gender, number of children, number of pet dogs, and the calendar month and yr they received their service dog. Participants also consented for the researchers to access their records on file with K9s For Warriors which allowed for the extraction of service dog information including brood, sex, and source (shelter rescue, owner relinquishment, breeder donation, etc.). Dog brood and source were so coded into wide categories to assistance with analysis.
PTSD Checklist
PTSD symptom severity was assessed using the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5), a widely used 20-item calibration based on the iv DSM-V symptom clusters of intrusion symptoms (subscale B), avoidance (criterion C), negative alterations in cognitions and mood (criterion D) and alterations in arousal and reactivity [criterion Due east; (25)]. Participants were asked to betoken the caste to which each PTSD symptom has bothered the participant in the past month on a scale from 0 = not at all to five = extremely. A higher PCL score indicated greater overall symptom severity, with a diagnosis cutoff of 31–33 on a calibration of 0 to 80 (7, 26).
Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS)
The human-beast bond was assessed with the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS), a unmarried question measure that quantifies self-perceived closeness of relationships (27). Participants were asked to draw the electric current human relationship between themselves and their service dog on a pictorial calibration (1 = completely separate circles and 7 = highly overlapping circles; Effigy 1). The IOS exhibited loftier reliability in the current sample (Cronbach's α's = 0.93), and has established convergent and divergent validity (27, 28). It correlates well with other interpersonal relationship measures such every bit the Human relationship Closeness Inventory (29), the Subjective Closeness Index (29), the Sterberg Intimacy Scale (30), and the Positive and Negative Emotions about Others scales (27–29).
Figure 1. Closeness and Training Methods. Military machine veterans (N = 111) were asked to describe the current human relationship between themselves and their service dog (self-perceived closeness) by choosing an particular on a pictorial calibration. (A) The pictorial scale shown to military veterans, replicated from the Inclusion of Others in the Self Calibration. In parentheses is the overall percentage of military machine veterans who chose each picture in this sample. (B) Significant associations between reported closeness and training methods resulting from linear regression models. Training Methods Scale: 0 = Never, 1 = One time, 2 = Once a Calendar week, iii = Daily.
Training Methods
Participants' at-habitation preparation methods and frequency of use were evaluated using a questionnaire (Supplemental Table 1) modified from a previous survey of canine training methods (12). In the survey, each training method was described as considerately equally possible and given an example such as "Exact praise ('practiced boy')." Participants were asked to estimate how frequently they had used each training method in the past month (0 = never, 1 = one time or twice, ii = weekly, and iii = daily). Participants were asked about a wide range of possible training methods (beyond what they were taught by the specific service domestic dog system) in gild to capture their actual in-domicile interactions with their service dogs. Grooming methods were grouped into wide categories for analysis based on operant conditioning techniques (positive reinforcement, positive penalty, and negative punishment) and interaction styles (bond-based and dominance-based) commonly used by dog trainers and service dog organizations (Table ane) This survey was pre-tested by canine experts in the field equally well as pet dog owners.
Tabular array 1. Handler Grooming Methods.
Although it is difficult to clearly separate between positive punishment and negative reinforcement, we chose to categorize techniques based on positive punishment and use this term for the residue of the manuscript. This rationale was 2-fold in that the bulk of previous literature focuses on potential negative effects of positive punishment (which may be more than salient to the dog) and, second, to simplify the assay and interpretation by ensuring that each training behavior was only included in a single category.
Dog Beliefs and Graphic symbol
Dog beliefs and character was evaluated via a modified questionnaire (Supplemental Table 1) from previous surveys of canine behaviors including the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ)©(12, 14, 31). Participants were asked to study how ofttimes their service canis familiaris had displayed a serial of behaviors in the concluding month (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, and three = often, four = always). Each behavior was described as considerately as possible such as "stayed close to yous when yous're sitting down or resting." After collecting the data, behaviors were grouped into broad categories for assay based on previous inquiry studies (12, 14, 31). Domestic dog character was described by directly request veterans to describe the character of their service dog as best they could on traits such equally playfulness, fear, centre contact, and sociability (0 = not at all/never, 1 = a little scrap, ii = moderately/sometimes, three = quite a bit, 4 = extremely/always). This survey was pre-tested by canine experts in the field too as pet dog owners.
Statistical Methods
Information were analyzed in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 24.0) using a series of regression models. Prior to testing, all assumptions of linear regression were confirmed including the independence of residuals, homogeneity of variance, normality of residuals, and multicollinearity in the data. For all summary scales, an boilerplate of individual items was calculated (excluding participants with >l% of missing data in each measure out). Data is presented equally mean ± standard deviation, where applicative. The significance level was ready at p < 0.05.
The dependent variable for the veteran-dog bond was the Inclusion of Other in Cocky (IOS) scale. The dependent variables for service domestic dog behavior were full unwanted behaviors, fright/avoidance, overall aggression, trainability, and zipper-attention behaviors. Finally, the dependent variables for service canis familiaris graphic symbol were each individual item.
In each model, explanatory variables included the frequency of use for each training type or style and the veteran's total PTSD Score. For training methods, the numerical frequency of each method was calculated and so averaged. All statistical models also initially included covariates of veteran age, veteran gender, domestic dog sex, and fourth dimension since placement. We removed covariates above p = 0.10 in the final analyses.
Results
Demographics
A full of 111 military veterans participated in the survey. Military veterans were mostly male person (lxxx%) with an boilerplate age of forty ± eight years (range 22–63). Average PCL-5 scores were 44 ± 17 (range three–fourscore). Veteran-service dog pairs had been together for anywhere from 1 month to seven years (M = 22 ± 20 months). Service dogs were mostly male (66%) and mostly shelter or rescue dogs (58%) with some from other service domestic dog providers (23%) or other sources (17%; e.m., owner give up). Their reported breeds were mostly purebred (38%) or mixed (31%) Labrador Retrievers, with a large pct of other purebred or mixed breeds (31%) such as German Shepherds or Aureate Retrievers.
Training Methods
Veteran service canis familiaris handlers self-reported using all five categories of training methods in the by month (Table ane). Positive reinforcement was reported to exist used well-nigh oftentimes with physical (100%; east.g., petting) and verbal praise (96%; eastward.grand., "good male child") being used by almost all veterans on a daily basis. Positive penalisation was the 2d most commonly used with the majority of veterans using verbal corrections (78%; eastward.chiliad., "no") on a daily basis. Bond-based methods were the third most common, which was largely driven by half of veterans (50%) co-sleeping with their dogs daily. Authorisation-based methods ranked fourth in frequency which was largely driven by 38% of veterans eating earlier their service dogs. Finally, negative punishment was used rarely (just ten% using daily).
PTSD Severity
Veteran's PTSD symptom severity was not significantly associated with any service dog behaviors, service canis familiaris graphic symbol, or the veteran-dog bond (all p'southward > 0.05, Table 2).
Table 2. Associations between grooming methods, PTSD Severity, veteran-service domestic dog closeness (IOS), and service domestic dog behavior and character.
Closeness
Armed services veterans felt extremely close to their service dogs (M = 5.8 ± i.3, maximum of 7, Figure 1). More than frequent reported use of positive reinforcement and bond-based methods were associated with a closer bail; conversely, more frequent reported use of positive penalty was associated with a less close bond (Table 2, Figure 1). Additionally, male military veterans reported a closer bond to their service dogs than female veterans.
Service Dog Beliefs and Character
Behavior
Participants reported that their service dogs often exhibited behaviors often interpreted as indicative of attachment or trainability and more rarely exhibited negative behaviors (such every bit those indicative of assailment or fear; Tabular array 3). For example, over half of veterans reported that their service dog always follows them from room to room when at home (68%), stays shut when sitting down or resting (lx%), obeys a sit (66%), and listens closely to them (61%). Anxiety and fear behaviors were reported next frequently with over 40% of service dogs reported to show behaviors of anxiety or fear at least sometimes. For example, 46% of service dogs were reported to at least sometimes be anxious or upset when alone. Finally, behaviors potentially indicative of assailment were reported least frequently. However, 16% of service dogs displayed at to the lowest degree one potentially ambitious behavior often or always in the past month, with 10% of service dogs displaying unwanted barking at the veteran often or always.
Table iii. Service dog behavior.
In this study, no item grooming method was associated with full behavior bug, overall aggression, or behaviors indicative of anxiety and fear in dogs (Table ii). Yet, certain grooming methods were associated with attachment or attention seeking behaviors and trainability (Table ii). Specifically, more frequent use of positive reinforcement was associated with increased trainability as well every bit attachment and attending-seeking behaviors; conversely, more frequent use of positive penalisation was associated with less trainability. Factors such as veteran historic period and gender were likewise associated with service dog behaviors. Younger veterans reported fewer full behavior bug, fewer fearful and avoidance behaviors, and greater trainability. Male veterans reported fewer total problematic behaviors in dogs.
Grapheme
On a calibration from 0 to 4, most veterans described their service dogs character as extremely food driven (iii.3 ± 1), focused (3.4 ± i), making eye contact oftentimes (3.2 ± one), sociable (3.0 ± 1), playful (two.nine ± ane), and agile (2.9 ± 1). Dogs were reported to be quite a scrap hunt driven (2.v ± 1) and reactive (ii.5 ± i). Although on boilerplate dogs were reported to rarely be fearful (1.i + i), 31% of veterans described their dogs equally at least moderately fearful in new areas or with new objects.
Sure training techniques and styles were associated with aspects of service dog character (Tabular array ii). Veterans that reported using more than positive reinforcement described their dogs as existence more playful, having more activity, and being more than chase driven. Additionally, more frequent reported use of bond-based methods was associated with lower activity. Conversely, more frequent reported use of positive penalisation was associated with higher fearfulness and less center contact. Additionally, more than frequent reported employ of negative punishment was associated with college chase bulldoze. Finally, younger veterans reported higher playfulness and greater focus in their service dogs. Neither the use of certain grooming technique or styles nor any covariates were associated with nutrient bulldoze, reactivity, or sociability (all p's > 0.05).
Discussion
General
To our cognition, this study represents the showtime to compare associations betwixt reported apply of different training methods, PTSD severity, the veteran-dog bond, and dog behavior or character among armed services veterans with PTSD and their service dogs. Our results did non support our hypothesis that veteran PTSD severity would exist associated with negative outcomes, but provided mixed prove of other our hypotheses.
Our results provided mixed show in support of our get-go hypothesis that self-reported aversive grooming methods would be significantly associated with negative outcomes. Specifically, veterans who reported more frequent apply of positive penalty reported less closeness with their service dog and perceiving their service dogs as exhibiting more fear, less middle contact, and being less trainable. However, there was no association between positive penalization and aggression (discussed below) or authorization-based training methods and whatsoever outcomes.
Our results also provided mixed show in support of our second hypothesis that self-reported positive training methods would be significantly associated with positive outcomes. Specifically, veterans who reported more frequent positive reinforcement reported more than closeness, attending, trainability, and playfulness with their service dog. Veterans who reported more frequent bail-based grooming reported more than closeness with their service dogs.
Training Methods
Military veterans in the population surveyed used a broad variety of in-home training methods with their psychiatric service dogs. Since we only asked veterans to study what preparation methods they were currently using (and did not ask them to specify the reasons they chose their methods) it is likely that these methods are based non only on instruction from the service canis familiaris organisation, but too previous experience grooming dogs or seeing others preparation dogs such as armed services working dogs or through television set programs. All veterans used some amount of positive reinforcement daily (e.g., physical praise, food rewards) and nearly all veterans used some positive penalty daily (e.g., exact correction, leash correction), which aligned with the service canis familiaris organization'southward instruction and recommendations. In comparison, bond-based, dominance-based, and negative penalisation training methods were used less oftentimes. In terms of bond-based techniques, 50% of veterans reported sleeping in the same bed as their canis familiaris, which may be partially due to the fact that some dogs are trained to wake their veterans up during nightmares.
A comprehensive review of previous studies indicates that aversive training methods (e.k., positive punishment and potency-based preparation) have been correlated with indicators of compromised welfare in dogs such equally stress-related behaviors during training, impaired human being-dog bond, elevated cortisol, and problem behaviors such as fear and aggression (xiii). However, this review also notes that many of the previous studies were non-objective surveys focused mainly on police force and laboratory dogs, which may not exist representative of the larger dog population and exercise not indicate causal direction. That is, with a correlational study—as in our current study—information technology is impossible to know whether behavior problems were acquired by aversive methods or increased used of aversive methods were caused past behavior problems (or even if the two are non causally related, just just associated). Furthermore, the previous objective empirical studies have mainly focused on using daze-collars in training (thirteen), which were never used in our population.
In terms of positive reinforcement, there have been possibly even fewer formal investigations of its impact on indicators of dog welfare. One observational report did prove that dogs from a school using positive-reinforcement showed increased attentiveness toward their owner, while dogs from a school using negative-reinforcement showed signals of stress (32). Advantage-based training has also been constitute to correlate with obedience (14, 33). Nonetheless, in one of these studies increased use of reward-based training was too associated with increased possessor-reported canine aggression and excitability (33), which seems to exist contrary to other findings.
In that location accept been even fewer formal investigations of dominance-based grooming methods (although several discussions of the concept), bond-based training, and negative penalization. For dominance, a survey of canis familiaris owners of dogs with behavior problems, directly confrontational methods (including dominance and positive punishment methods such as blastoff roll, stare down, concrete correction) were reported to arm-twist an aggressive response from dogs and therefore non recommended (34). Furthermore, scientific reviews on using authorisation as a construct in domestic dogs hold that using coercive methods to assert "dominance" (i.e., alpha roll) is counterproductive, unsafe for owners, likely to negatively impact dog welfare, and is associated with undesirable behaviors (35–37). In this written report, a lack of findings for dominance-based training methods could be because we included the behavior of "eating before" the domestic dog (based off of mutual practices in dominance-based grooming books), which tin simply provide structure and routine for the canis familiaris and is unlikely to exist particularly aversive. Additionally, some veterans may non actually perform "alpha rolls" in an aversive style to establish dominance. In the survey, we attempted to describe this behavior equally objectively as possible ["forcefulness domestic dog to roll on their back ('alpha roll')"] to prevent response bias, but in doing so lost the context of the actions. Therefore, information technology is possible that some veterans perform this behavior in a more playful mode that may not really exist aversive to the dogs.
For bond-based grooming (although no specific techniques have been assessed) there has been an association that owners who allow their dogs to sleep in their bedroom have higher zipper to their animals (38). Overall, it is clear that scientific evidence is limited in determining the effect of domestic dog training techniques on dog welfare, training efficacy, and the homo-animal bail. Our study took an initial approach to evaluating the associations betwixt training methods, dog behavior, and the human-fauna bond among military veterans and their psychiatric service dogs.
Closeness
Overall, veterans reported loftier interrelationship closeness with their service dogs, with 40% of veterans choosing the highest degree of circular overlap betwixt themselves and their dogs, and the mean for all veterans beingness 5.8 on a vii-point scale. The Inclusion of Other in the Cocky-Scale (IOS) is a fairly novel measure in the human-animal bond literature; it indicated that veterans both feel close and perform behaviors associated with closeness with their service dogs (27). Our results marshal fairly well with previous results that handlers of service dogs have higher closeness with their dogs than pet owners. Previously, using the IOS, pet owners take been establish to accept a mean of 3.5 and iii.9 out of seven with their closest pet (39, xl), while inmates training service domestic dog puppies were found to have higher means of six.2 (41). The IOS is advantageous because information technology is a single item scale that is fast for participants to complete and is non reliant on participants having a specific blazon of bond, but instead relies on private perceptions. It also appears to not have the ceiling effect previously seen in other service domestic dog owners (42).
There was no pregnant clan detected between severity of PTSD symptomology and veteran-service dog closeness. This suggests that regardless of the severity of PTSD experienced, veterans are withal able to bond strongly with their service dogs. This is mirrored by findings that there is no association between the Monash Dog Owner Human relationship Calibration and PTSD symptoms amidst military veterans (O'Haire and Rodriguez, Unpublished data).
There were a few associations between veteran-service dog closeness and self-reported use of training techniques. In particular, nosotros plant that both positive reinforcement and bond-based training techniques were associated with closer bonds. Positive reinforcement techniques include verbal praise and bond-based methods including co-sleeping may increase perceived closeness (22, 43). Conversely, we plant that greater use of positive penalization was associated with less closeness. Nevertheless, equally this is an association-based study, nosotros cannot determine causality. For example, it is possible that veterans who feel less close to their dogs are more likely to use positive penalisation, rather than the use of positive punishment causing less close feelings.
Service Dog Behavior and Graphic symbol
There was no meaning relationship observed betwixt veteran-reported service dog beliefs or grapheme and PTSD symptom severity. This suggests that veterans with more severe PTSD may not crusade or perceive behavioral bug in their service dogs. This is reverse to previous results finding that emotional instability and symptoms of depression and PTSD are associated with and predicted the development of behavioral problems in pet and search-and-rescue dogs (15, 16). Therefore, information technology is possible that this result may be unique to specifically trained PTSD service dogs.
Overall, service dogs displayed many positive behaviors and grapheme. Most service dogs ofttimes showed behaviors typically interpreted every bit signs of trainability besides as zipper & attending behaviors. This is unsurprising every bit service dogs are specifically selected and trained to exist highly attentive and obedient to their handlers. Their character was generally appropriate for a service dog with nearly dogs being highly food driven and displaying frequent eye contact. A high brandish of eye contact is of import because of literature showing that eye contact increases the production of oxytocin in both dogs and humans and facilitates owners' affiliative behaviors (44). Increasing oxytocin production is particularly relevant to veterans with PTSD as the application of intranasal oxytocin has been suggested as a complementary strategy for PTSD treatment (45).
The most common trouble behavior category cited by veterans was signs of fear and anxiety. Veterans reported that 45% of their service dogs were at to the lowest degree sometimes anxious or upset when left alone. Previously, signs of owner-reported separation feet of pet dogs has been measured at rates between ~34–38% (12, 14). Service dogs are very rarely left alone since they are allowed to accompany their handlers in public places. Therefore, this effect may exist less observable in service dogs than pet dogs merely because it occurs less often. Even so, because service dogs are rarely left alone, it may leave dogs less prepared to exist alone when they must be, which will undoubtedly occur occasionally. Relatively loftier levels of separation anxiety may also relate to service canis familiaris training to class high attachment with their owners–as indicated by nearly service dogs always following their owners around at home–which is besides considered as a potential bespeak of separation anxiety. Signs of at least rare fear of noises were reported in 46% of service dogs which is similar to previous studies of companion dogs where percentages range from 12.i to 43% (12, 46, 47). On the opposite, 94% of service dogs in our report never or rarely showed signs of anxiety when in public, which is important since public access is the main feature distinguishing a service dog from a pet dog.
Although there was no clan betwixt overall behavior problems in dogs and training techniques, there were several associations between beliefs and character subscales and training techniques. Positive methods such every bit positive reinforcement and bond-based training generally were associated with more positive behaviors such as higher eye contact, zipper and attending behaviors, and playfulness. These findings back up prior research that positive reinforcement was associated with lower undesirable behaviors (12, 14). On the contrary, positive penalisation was associated with more than signs of fear, less middle contact, and less trainability. This finding supports previous work indicating associations and causality of negative outcomes when positive punishment is used (12–14). However, information technology is possible that handlers who find their dogs less trainable are more than likely to use positive penalization, rather than positive penalty causing less trainability. Withal, this alternative explanation makes less sense when considering the association betwixt self-reported fear and positive punishment; that is, it less logical for handlers who perceive their dogs are more fearful to employ positive penalty to combat that, rather than positive punishment really leading to higher fear. Finally, increased use of negative punishment was slightly associated with higher perceived chase bulldoze toward assurance or moving objects. It is possible that dog's that chase more frequently are likewise bailiwick to techniques such as "time outs" in the crate, rather than negative punishment really causing increased chasing.
Some veterans reported potentially ambitious behaviors occurring–albeit at very low levels and rates–such as unwanted barking or growling at other people. The American Disabilities Act requires that service dogs must be under control of the handler at all times 2; nonetheless, these results do non necessarily indicate that the dogs are not nether control or even showing truthful aggression. Nosotros did non distinguish as to whether these instances occurred in public situations or while the dog was in the dwelling house. Furthermore, in the comment section of this section of the survey, some veterans noted that the domestic dog aggression was toward off-leash dogs that had approached the service dog while working or mouthy-ness during normal play with the family dog. Additionally, some unwanted barking could exist due to excitement or attention seeking behavior. Nevertheless, other veterans noted in the comment section of the survey that some growling was due to dogs becoming protective of their handlers.
Other than preparation methods, there were a few factors that were also associated with service dog beliefs and character. Younger veterans reported that their dogs had fewer negative behaviors (both overall and specifically anxiety/fearfulness) and more positive behaviors (playfulness and trainability). It is possible that younger veterans may but be more able to foreclose negative behaviors and arm-twist positive behaviors or exist more effective dog trainers. On the other paw, they simply may accept a more positive view of their service dogs and study fewer problems and more positive behaviors.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this investigation. Get-go, since this study was cross-sectional it is impossible to determine causation in the associations that were uncovered. For instance, it is possible that veterans who experience closer to their dogs are simply more likely to employ positive reinforcement techniques, rather than positive reinforcement actually causing more feelings of closeness. Further studies would benefit from randomly assigning preparation methods to subsets of the population to decide the management of causality of this clan. Nevertheless, this study provides initial insight into associations between training methods and relevant outcomes, which could provide rationale for time to come study.
Second, this survey but evaluated veterans receiving service dogs from a single service dog provider. This may have reduced possible variation in our results and masked boosted relationships that could be identified. Still, as we did detect acceptable variation and this is 1 of the largest providers of PTSD service dogs that serves a nationally representative sample of veterans, the results may all the same exist applicable to a broad population.
Finally, since this survey but included indirect, handler-reported behavioral assessments of their service dogs, there is the potential for subjective biases to occur. Additionally, handlers reported behaviors may not accurately reflect their training styles for the best assessment of dominance- or bond-based training styles. Further studies would benefit from objective behavioral observations with either live or video coding, cess of the context of these behaviors, and an assessment of the handlers' overall grooming philosophy. However, this study provides insight into the experiences and perceptions of veterans with service dogs, which are uniquely important to consider in the context of an intervention targeting human being-perceived outcomes. Additionally, handler perceptions of dog behavior are disquisitional to understand as they likely influence the homo-animal bail, which is the basis for the do of service dogs for PTSD.
Conclusions
In conclusion, in that location appear to exist associations between higher reported apply of positive training methods and positive outcomes for service dogs. Additionally, in that location are a few associations betwixt higher reported utilize of negative training methods and negative outcomes for service dogs. Finally, at that place was no association between PTSD severity, closeness betwixt a veteran and their service dog, or the dog's behaviors or grapheme. Overall, educating service dog organizations and recipients well-nigh the relationships between grooming methods, service dog behavior, and service dog character could be beneficial for service dog efficacy and welfare.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the conceptualization and methodology of the study. ML and KR contributed to data curation. ML, KR, and MO performed the statistical analysis. ML wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This publication was made possible with support from grant numbers KL2TR001106 and UL1TR001108 (A. Shekhar, PI) from the National Institutes of Health, National Centre for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. It was also made possible with support from Merrick Pet Care, Newman's Own Foundation, and the Purdue University College of Veterinarian Medicine. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does non necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The funders did not have any interest in study design; drove, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the written report; and the decision to submit the commodity for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of whatsoever commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge our collaborators K9s For Warriors for their assistance during the projection connecting u.s. with military veterans and providing us with demographic information about the service dogs. We are also grateful to the military men and women who took the time to participate in this report.
Supplementary Textile
The Supplementary Cloth for this article can be establish online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00023/full#supplementary-material
Supplemental Table 1. Questionnaire for military veterans. The question scale, question text, response options, and coded response values of the survey given to military veterans about their PTSD service dogs.
Footnotes
one. ^Americans With Disabilities Human action of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 328. (1990).
2. ^Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. (1990). 104.
References
ane. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-V. fifth ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association (2013). doi: x.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
CrossRef Full Text
2. Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, McGurk D, Cotting DI, Koffman RL. Combat duty in Iraq and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to Intendance. N Engl J Med. (2004) 351:13–22. doi: ten.1056/NEJMoa040603
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
three. Tanielian T, Jaycox LJ. Invisible Wounds of War. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Centre (2008).
Google Scholar
4. Kemp J, Bossarte R. Suicide Information Report: 2012. Department of Veterans Affairs, Mental Wellness Services, Suicide Prevention Programme Washington, DC. (2013).
Google Scholar
5. Grieger TA, Cozza SJ, Ursano RJ, Hoge C, Martinez PE, Engel CC, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle-injured soldiers. Am J Psychiatry (2006) 163:1777–83. doi: x.1176/ajp.2006.163.10.1777
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
6. Jacobson IG, Ryan MA, Hooper TI, Smith TC, Amoroso PJ, Boyko EJ, et al. Alcohol use and alcohol-related bug before and subsequently military gainsay deployment. Jama (2008) 300:663–75. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.6.663
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
7. Hoge CW, Grossman SH, Auchterlonie JL, Riviere LA, Milliken CS, Wilk JE. PTSD treatment for soldiers afterwards combat deployment: low utilization of mental health care and reasons for dropout. Psychiatr Serv. (2014) 65:997–1004. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300307
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
8. Mott JM, Mondragon S, Hundt NE, Beason-Smith M, Grady RH, Teng EJ. Characteristics of U.S. Veterans who begin and complete prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy for PTSD. J Traum Stress (2014) 27:265–73. doi: 10.1002/jts.21927
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
ix. Schottenbauer MA, Glass CR, Arnkoff DB, Tendick V, Gray SH. Nonresponse and dropout rates in outcome studies on PTSD: review and methodological considerations. Psychiatry (2008) 71:134–68. doi: 10.1521/psyc.2008.71.2.134
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
x. Millan C, Peltier MJ. Cesar'south Fashion: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Agreement and Correcting Common Dog Problems, 1st Edn. Harmony, CA: 3 Rivers Printing. (2006).
Google Scholar
11. Arnold J, Roberts J. Dear Is All Y'all Demand: The Revolutionary Bond-Based Arroyo to Educating Your Domestic dog. New York, NY: Penguin Random Firm LLC. (2016).
Google Scholar
12. Blackwell EJ, Twells C, Seawright A, Casey RA. The relationship betwixt grooming methods and the occurrence of behavior issues, every bit reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. J Vet Behav. (2008) three:207–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
thirteen. Fernandes JG, Olsson IAS, Vieira de Castro AC. Do aversive-based training methods actually compromise dog welfare?: a literature review. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2017) 196:ane–12. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.07.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
14. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: their utilise, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Anim Welf. (2004) 13:63–70.
Google Scholar
fifteen. Hunt 1000, Otto CM, Serpell JA, Alvarez J. Interactions between handler well-existence and canine health and behavior in search and rescue teams. Anthrozoös (2012) 25:323–35. doi: 10.2752/175303712X13403555186253
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xvi. Podberscek AL, Serpell JA. Aggressive Behaviour in english language cocker spaniels and the personality of their owners. Vet Tape (1997) 141:73–vi.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
17. Dodman NH, Brown DC, Serpell JA. Associations between owner personality and psychological status and the prevalence of canine behavior problems. PLoS I (2018) thirteen:e0192846. doi: ten.1371/journal.pone.0192846
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
21. Lue TW, Pantenburg DP, Crawford PM. Impact of the owner-pet and client-veterinarian bond on the care that pets receive. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2008) 232:531–forty. doi: 10.2460/javma.232.4.531
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
25. Weathers FW, Litz BT, Keane TM, Palmieri PA, Marx BP, Schnurr PP The PTSD Checklist (PCL): Reliability, Validity, and Diagnostic Utility (1993). National Center for PTSD 721 Website. 2013. Available online at: http://world wide web.ptsd.va.gov/ (2013).
26. Bovin MJ, Marx BP, Weathers FW, Gallagher MW, Rodriguez P, Schnurr PP, et al. Psychometric Backdrop of the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition (PCL-v) in Veterans. (2016).
PubMed Abstract
27. Aron A, Aron EN, Smollan D. Inclusion of Other in the cocky scale and the construction of interpersonal closeness. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1992) 63:596–612. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
28. Gächter South, Starmer C, Tufano F. Measuring the closeness of relationships: a comprehensive evaluation of the "inclusion of the other in the self" calibration. PLoS ONE (2015) ten:e0129478. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129478
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
29. Berscheid E, Snyder M, Omoto AM. The relationship closeness inventory: assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1989) 57:792–807. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.five.792
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
31. Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Evolution and validation of a questionnaire for measuring beliefs and temperament traits in pet dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. (2003) 223:1293–300. doi: x.2460/javma.2003.223.1293
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
32. Deldalle S, Gaunet F. Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related behaviors of the canis familiaris (Canis Familiaris) and on the domestic dog–owner relationship. J Vet Behav. (2014) ix:58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.eleven.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
33. Arhant C, Bubna-Littitz H, Bartels A, Futschik A, Troxler J. Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the dog. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2010) 123:131–42. doi: x.1016/j.applanim.2010.01.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
34. Herron ME, Shofer FS, Reisner IR. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and not-confrontational preparation methods in customer-endemic dogs showing undesired behaviors. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 117:47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
35. Bradshaw JWS, Blackwell EJ, Casey RA. Dominance in domestic dogs—a response to schilder et al. J Vet Behav. (2016) 11:102–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.eleven.008
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
36. Bradshaw JWS, Blackwell EJ, Casey RA. Say-so in domestic dogs—useful construct or bad habit? J Vet Behav. (2009) iv:135–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
37. Schilder MBH, Vinke CM, van der Borg JAM. Dominance in domestic dogs revisited: useful habit and useful construct? J Vet Behav. (2014) 9:184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.04.005
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
38. Martens P, Enders-Slegers MJ Walker. (2016). The emotional lives of companion animals: attachment and subjective claims past owners of cats and dogs. Anthrozoös 29:73–88. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1075299
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
39. McConnell AR, Brown CM, Shoda TM, Stayton LE, Martin CE. Friends with Benefits: on the positive consequences of pet ownership. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2011) 101:1239. doi: 10.1037/a0024506
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xl. Cavanaugh LA, Leonard HA, Scammon DL. A tail of ii personalities: how canine companions shape relationships and well-being. J Business Res. (2008) 61:469–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.024
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
41. Aufderheide C. The Application and Effects of Service Domestic dog Training past Inmates to Cocky-Perception and Cocky-Other Overlap as a Rehabilitative Approach to Incarceration. Main's thesis, University of Oregon (2016).
42. Rodriguez KE, Bibbo J, O'Haire ME. The effects of service dogs on psychosocial health and wellbeing for individuals with concrete disabilities or chronic atmospheric condition. Dis Rehabil. (2019). doi: x.1080/09638288.2018.1524520
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
43. Thompson K, Smith B. Should We let sleeping dogs lie… with us? synthesizing the literature and setting the agenda for research on human-beast co-sleeping practices. Humanimalia (2014) half-dozen:114–27.
Google Scholar
44. Nagasawa M, Mitsui S, En S, Ohtani North, Ohta One thousand, Sakuma Y, et al. Oxytocin-Gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds. Science (2015) 348:333–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1261022
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
45. Koch SB, van Zuiden M, Nawijn L, Frijling JL, Veltman DJ, Olff M. Intranasal oxytocin as strategy for medication-enhanced psychotherapy of ptsd: salience processing and fear inhibition processes. Psychoneuroendocrinology (2014) 40:242–56. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.xi.018
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
46. Blackwell EJ, Bradshaw JWS, Casey RA. Fear responses to noises in domestic dogs: prevalence, risk factors and co-occurrence with other fright related behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2013) 145:15–25. doi: x.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.004
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
47. Martínez ÁG, Pernas GS, Casalta FJD, Rey MLS, Palomino LFC. (2011). Adventure factors associated with behavioral issues in dogs. J Vet Behav. 6:225–231. doi: x.1016/j.jveb.2011.01.006
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00023/full
0 Response to "Peer Review Information for Service Dogs and Veterans With Ptsd"
Post a Comment