The impact of service and hearing dogs on health-related quality of life and activity level: a Swedish longitudinal intervention study

Martina Lundqvist, Lars-Åke Levin, Kerstin Roback, Jenny Alwin, Martina Lundqvist, Lars-Åke Levin, Kerstin Roback, Jenny Alwin

Abstract

Background: Individuals with severe disability often require personal assistance and help from informal caregivers, in addition to conventional health care. The utilization of assistance dogs may decrease the need for health and social care and increase the independence of these individuals. Service and hearing dogs are trained to assist specific individuals and can be specialized to meet individual needs. The aim of this study was to describe and explore potential consequences for health-related quality of life, well-being and activity level, of having a certified service or hearing dog.

Methods: A longitudinal interventional study with a pre-post design was conducted. At inclusion, all participants in the study had a regular (untrained) companion dog. Data were collected before training of the dog started and three months after certification of the dog. Health-related quality of life was assessed with EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS and RAND-36. Well-being was measured with WHO-5 and self-esteem with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. In addition, questions were asked about physical activity and time spent away from home and on social activities. Subgroups were analyzed for physical service and diabetes alert dogs.

Results: Fifty-five owner-and-dog pairs completed the study (30 physical service dogs, 20 diabetes alert dogs, 2 epilepsy alert dogs, and 3 hearing dogs). Initially, study participants reported low health-related quality of life compared with the general population. At follow-up, health-related quality of life measured with the EQ-VAS, well-being and level of physical activity had improved significantly. In the subgroup analysis, physical service dog owners had lower health-related quality of life than diabetes alert dog owners. The improvement from baseline to follow-up measured with EQ-5D statistically differed between the subgroups.

Conclusions: The target population for service and hearing dogs has an overall low health-related quality of life. Our study indicates that having a certified service or hearing dog may have positive impact on health-related quality of life, well-being and activity level. Service and hearing dogs are a potentially important "wagging tail aid" for this vulnerable population, able to alleviate strain, increase independence, and decrease the risk of social isolation.

Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in http://clinicaltrial.gov , NCT03270592. September, 2017.

Keywords: Alert dog; Assistance dog; Health-related quality of life; Self-esteem; Service dog; Well-being.

Conflict of interest statement

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Education process and data collection procedure.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of physical activity during leisure time in the last 3 months

References

    1. McPhail SM. Multimorbidity in chronic disease: impact on health care resources and costs. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2016;9:143–156. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S97248.
    1. Tough H, Siegrist J, Fekete C. Social relationships, mental health and wellbeing in physical disability: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2017;17:414. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4308-6.
    1. Assistance Dogs International. Types of Assistance Dogs. . Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
    1. The Swedish Kennel Club. Assistanshund som hjälpmedel [In Swedish]. . Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
    1. The Swedish Association of Service Dogs. Service- och signalhundsförbundets assistanshundar [In Swedish]. /. Accessed 21 Feb 2017.
    1. Swedish Working Dog Club. Utbilda assistanshund [In Swedish]. . Accessed 21 Mar 2017.
    1. Hubert G, Tousignant M, Routhier F, Corriveau H, Champagne N. Effect of service dogs on manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury: a pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50:341–350. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2011.07.0124.
    1. Shintani M, Senda M, Takayanagi T, Katayama Y, Furusawa K, Okutani T, et al. The effect of service dogs on the improvement of health-related quality of life. Acta Med Okayama. 2010;64:109–113.
    1. Hall SS, MacMichael J, Turner A, Mills DS. A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: A pilot study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2017;15:59. doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0640-x.
    1. Camp MM. The use of service dogs as an adaptive strategy: a qualitative study. Am J Occup Ther. 2001;55:509–517. doi: 10.5014/ajot.55.5.509.
    1. Allen K, Blascovich J. The value of service dogs for people with severe ambulatory disabilities. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1996;275:1001–1006. doi: 10.1001/jama.1996.03530370039028.
    1. Collins DM, Fitzgerald SG, Sachs-Ericsson N, Scherer M, Cooper RA, Boninger ML. Psychosocial well-being and community participation of service dog partners. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2006;1:41–48. doi: 10.1080/09638280500167183.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States. Medical care. 1997;35:1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ. 1993;2:217–227. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730020305.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JEJ. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey--I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1349–1358. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00125-Q.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
    1. Psychiatric Research Unit - Mental Health Centre North Zealand - Denmark. WHO-five Well-being Index (WHO-5). . Accessed 4 April 2017.
    1. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. 3. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 1972.
    1. The Public Health Agency of Sweden. National public health survey, Health on equal terms - 2008. . Accessed 21 Mar 2017.
    1. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523–1532. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale; 1988.
    1. Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health policy. 2006;76:359–370. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.06.011.
    1. Van Den Berg B. SF-6D population norms. Health Economics (United Kingdom) 2012;21:1508–1512.
    1. Corp IBM. IBM SPSS for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2015.
    1. Fairman SK, Huebner RA. Service dogs: A compensatory resource to improve function. Occupational Therapy in Health Care. 2000;13:41–52. doi: 10.1080/J003v13n02_03.
    1. White N, Mills D, Hall S. Attachment Style Is Related to Quality of Life for Assistance Dog Owners. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14:658. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14060658.
    1. Federation Cynologique Internationale. FCI breeds nomenclature. . Accessed 12 Jan 2018.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe