IGDB Assistance Dogs Programme Evaluation (Study 1) University - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IGDB Assistance Dogs Programme Evaluation (Study 1)

University College Cork

Approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC) of the Cork Teaching Hospitals

Prepared by: Dr Louise Burgoyne & Dr Tony Fitzgerald Department of Epidemiology & Public Health

Background

• The value animal interventions play in promoting human

mental & physical health is beginning to gain recognition.

(Friedmann 1995; Berget et al., 2008; Bizub et al., 2003; Endenburg and van Lith 2011; Morrison 2007; Katcher and Teumer 2006).

• Three main groupings; animal assisted activities (AAA),

animal assisted therapies (AAT) and service animal programmes (SAP)

• Of late assistance dogs have received growing attention as a

means of aiding children with ASD.

Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind

• Launched in 2005 the Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind (IGDB)

Assistance Dog Programme was the first of its kind in Europe.

• Today there are over 200 families in Ireland with an IGDB

assistance dog.

• The primary function of an assistance dog placed by the IGDB

is to help a child by promoting calmness and acting as a safety aid to the parent.

Unique Triad

FIGURE 1. Finbarr and Flos (IGDB 2013) FIGURE 2. Josh and Flora (IGDB 2013)

Challenges for Families

• Elopement behaviour

– Even infrequent elopement is potentially life threatening

(Lang, Rispoli et al., 2009; Anderson, Law et al., 2012)

• Parental strain

– Social emotional and behavioural challenges mean parents/guardians experience high distress (Seymour, Wood et

al., 2013; de Andres-Garcia, Sarinana-Gonzales et al., 2013; Hayes and Watson 2013)

• Public Acceptance

– Public tantrums and reaction from others are regarded as

• ne of the most difficult aspects of a child with ASD’s

behaviour (Ludlow, Skelly et al., 2012)

Study Aim & Objectives

• To date there has been no formal evaluation of an assistance

dogs programme for children with ASD.

• In this initial study we aimed to measure parents & guardians

ratings on; – Child safety from environmental hazards, – Public acceptance and awareness of ASD, – Levels of caregiver strain, – Levels of competence with managing a child with ASD, – Benefits and constraints of having an assistance dog.

Participants

• Clients of IGDB with an assistance dog

– Total population N=205 (January 2013) – Sample n=134 (65% response)

• Families on the waiting list for an assistance dog

– Total population N=107 (January 2013) – Sample n=87 (81% response)

Figure 3. Assistance Dog Cassie (IGDB 2013)

Measures

• Self-report questionnaire
• 1. Demographic (age, gender, other conditions, education,

therapies, treatments)

• 2. Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) =0.876
• 3. Caregiver Strain Questionnaire =0.940
• 4. Environmental Hazards =0.928
• 5. Public Allowances =0.940
• 6. Benefits of having a dog
• 7. Constraints of having a dog

Figure 4. IGDB assistance dog in training (IGDB 2013)

Procedures

• Data gathering phase

– Start October 2012 to start March 2013

• Postal Questionnaire Pack

– Consent Form (with details of study) – Questionnaire – Stamped addressed envelope – UCC research envelope

Figure 5. Conor & Hayley (IGDB 2013)

Results

• Data were input by two researchers.
• Analysed using IBM SPSS statistics 19.
• Descriptive analysis.

– Frequencies, means, SD’s.

• Inferential analysis

– T-tests, ANOVA, – Multiple Linear Regression.

• Qualitative

– Thematic analysis.

Figure 6 IGDB 2013

Characteristics

Table 1 Participant Characteristics (With Dog n=135, Waiting for Dog n=107) Characteristics With Dog N (%) Waiting for Dog N (%) Gender Male 116 (87.0) 79 (91.0) Age 0-6 years 30 (23.0) 60 (69.0) 7-9 years 50 (37.0) 24 (28.0) 10 and over 54 (40.0) 3 (3.0) Location Town/city centre 20 (15.0) 8 (9.0) Suburb 62 (46.0) 47 (57.0) Countryside 52 (39.0) 28 (34.0)

• No. of Children

1 Child 17 (13.0) 12 (14.0) 2 Children 51 (39.0) 31 (36.0) ≥ 3 Children 64 (48.0) 42 (50.0) Other conditions Yes 47 (35.0) 28 (32.0) Verbal Yes 74 (56.0) 38 (44.0)

Education

Table 2 Education and Therapies (With dog n=80: Waiting list n=84) Education & Therapy With Dog N (%) Waiting for Dog N (%) Schooling Pre-school 10 (11.9) Home tuition 1 (1.3) 4 (4.8) Primary 13 (16.3) 11 (31.1) Special class (Primary) 17 (21.3) 29 (34.5) Special school (ASD) 49 (61.3) 30 (35.7) Learning Programme Picture exchange (PECS) 45 (56.3) 52 (61.9) TEACCH strategies 29 (36.3) 27 (32.1) Applied behavioural analysis (ABA) 41 (51.3) 22 (26.2) No specific programme 6 (7.5) 13 (15.7)

Therapies

Table 3 Education and Therapies (With dog n=80: Waiting list n=84) Education & Therapy With Dog N (%) Waiting for Dog N (%) Conventional Regular Speech & Language 38 (47.5) 32 (38.1) Regular Occupational Therapy 37 (46.3) 32 (38.1) Occasional Speech and Language 38 (47.6) 40 (47.6) Occasional Occupational Therapy 39 (48.8) 39 (46.4) Resource teacher 20 (25.0) 22 (26.2) Special needs assistant 64 (80.0) 57 (67.9) Non-conventional Acupuncture 3 (3.8) 2 (2.4) Dietary supplements 32 (40.0) 20 (23.8) Dietary programmes 35 (43.8) 17 (20.2) Music/Art therapies 22 (27.5) 20 (23.8)

Environmental Hazards & Public Acceptance

Item Description Mean (95%CI) P-value With Dog (n=80) Waiting Dog (n=84) Diff* (95% CI) (HAZ) Environmental Hazards (security from hazards when

• n walks, visiting a park,

shopping centre, restaurants etc.,) 32.43 (29.47: 35.39) 22.97 (20.83: 25.11) 10.9 (6.8, 15.1) < 0.001 (PUBLIC) Public Acceptance (people make allowances when on walks, in a shopping centre, restaurant, park) 15.87 (14.23: 17.50) 10.67 (9.56:11.77) 5.8 (3.6, 8.0) <0.001

Table 4. Summary of results from Environmental Hazards and Public Acceptance Scales HAZ - range 8-56 from lower to higher perceived safety and security. PUBLIC - range from 4-28 from lower to higher public acceptance.

*Adjusted for gender, age, location, education

Caregiver Strain & Competence

Item Description Mean (95%CI) P-Value With Dog (n=80) Waiting for Dog (n=84) (OS) Objective Strain (11 items) Dealing with emotional needs of child & impact of caregiving on family life. Range (11 low -55 high strain) 35.03 (32.81: 37.20) 35.91 (34.08:38.01) 0.36 (SIS) Subjective Internalised Strain (6 items) Negative feelings internal to the carer e.g., feeling sad, unhappy, worried. Range (6 low – 35 high strain) 22.47 (21.21:23.60) 23.63 (22.89:25.03) 0.15 (SES) Subjective Externalised Strain (4 items) Negative feelings directed to child e.g., feeling resentful, embarrassed. Range (4 low – 20 high strain) 9.71 (8.93:10.40) 9.80 (9.31:10.53) 0.84 Item Description Mean (CI) Diff *95%CI P-Value With Dog (n=80) Waiting for Dog (n=84) (SD) Competence (4 items) Feelings or perceptions of confidence with respect to an activity or domain. Range (4 low - 28 high competence) 19.75 (18.74:20.77) 17.91 (16.52: 18.92) 2.0 (0.2, 3.8) 0.03

Table 5. Summary of results from Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) Table 6. Summary of results from Perceived competence scale *Adjusted for age, gender, location, education

Benefits of Assistance Dog

Physical Factors Relationship Factors Family Factors

Benefits

Safety & Security (Dog: n=44) (No dog: n=44) No Bolt (Dog: n=10) (No dog: n=19) Physiological (Dog: n=5) (No dog: n=4) Management (Dog: n=6) (No dog: n=5) Friend (Dog: n=17) (No dog: n=17) Calm & Comfort (Dog: n=20) (No Dog: n=17) Emotion & Stress (Dog: n=7) (No Dog: n=20) Fun and Play (Dog: n=5) (No Dog: n=3) Social (Dog: n=5) (No Dog: n=15) Freedom (Dog: n=21) (No Dog: n=17) Visibility (Dog: n=19) (No Dog: n=6)

Constraints of Assistance Dog

Change Factors Relationship Factors Limiting Factors

Constraints

Dedication (Dog: n=27) (No dog: n=34) Attention (Dog: n=4) (No dog: n=3) Walks (Dog: n=8) (No dog: n=3) Acceptance (Dog: n=6) (No dog: n=19) Dogs life (Dog: n=4) (No Dog: n=4) Holidays (Dog: n=6) (No Dog: n=14) Clean (Dog: n=15) (No Dog: n=2) Restrictions (Dog: n=21) (No Dog: n=16) Cost (Dog: n=23) (No Dog: n=17) No constraints (Dog: n=14) (No dog: n=15)

Benefits Quotations

“Our son is far less anxious when we are out and about” (parent of boy 7-9 years) “Before the dog we could not go anywhere as a family, now with the dog we can go into buildings and shops” (parent of boy 7-9 years) “Our assistance dog started a change in our son for the better, it gave him a friend, a talking motivator and an OT aid when stroking her” (parent of boy 4-6 years) “I hope it may help my sons tendency to bolt” (parent of boy 4-6 years) “It would make my life less stressful in public places” (parent of girl 4-6 years) “I will have increased confidence when taking out the children on my own” (parent of boy 7-9 years)

Constraints Quotations

“Its like an additional child in the family” (parent of boy 4-6 years) “Making sure to get dog walked even if you are not going out or kids are sick” (parent of boy 4-6 years) “My son may not connect with the dog” (parent of boy 4-6 years) “There is extra expense for food and vets bills etc” (parent of boy 7-9 years) “There will be the responsibility of the dog and method of dedicated care (parent of boy 7-9 years) “Additional care of another in an already hectic household” (parent of girl ≤3 years) “Having to continually explain about the dog to people in public” (parent of boy 4-6 years)

Conclusions

• Parents/guardians with an IGDB assistance dog rate

their child as significantly safer from environmental dangers than those on the waiting list.

• Parents/guardians with an IGDB assistance dog rate

themselves as significantly more competent about managing their child with ASD.

(IGDB 2013)

Conclusions

• Safety & security, calm & comfort and freedom are

some of the main benefits perceived by families.

• The amount of dedication required to keep a dog and

restrictions around holidays and other situations are some of the main constraints perceived by families.

Figures 8-11 assistance dog in training (IGDB 2013)