MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913390661 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00023

Military Veterans and Their PTSD Service Dogs: Associations Between Training Methods, PTSD Severity, Dog Behavior, and the Human-Animal Bond

2019· article· en· W2913390661 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan R. LaFollette, Kerri E. Rodriguez, Niwako Ogata, Marguerite E. O’Haire

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsService memberPsychologyMilitary serviceClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMilitary personnelPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Psychiatric service dogs are increasingly being sought out by military veterans as a complementary intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After receiving a service dog, many veterans continue training their service dog at home. Our objective was to explore the associations between training methods, PTSD severity, service dog behavior, and the veteran-service dog bond in a population of military veterans with PTSD. Methods. Post-9/11 military veterans with PTSD who had received a psychiatric service dog were recruited from a national service dog provider. A total of 111 veterans (M=40.1 ± 8.3 years, 80% male) participated in an online survey regarding frequency of training methods, PTSD symptom severity, service dog behavior, and the human-animal bond. Service dogs were predominately Labrador Retriever purebreds or mixes of various breeds (66% male) and mostly obtained from shelters or rescues (58%). Training methods were divided into five categories: positive reinforcement (e.g. physical praise), negative punishment (e.g. ignoring the dog), positive punishment (e.g. verbal correction), dominance (e.g. alpha roll), and bond-based (e.g. co-sleeping). Data were analyzed using general linear models. Results. Veterans self-reported using all five categories of training methods at least once a month. More frequent use of positive punishment was associated with less closeness with their service dog (p=0.02), more fear (p=0.003), less eye contact (p<0.0001), and less trainability (p=0.04). More frequent use of positive reinforcement was associated with higher closeness to their service dog (p=0.002) and perceived increased attachment behavior (p=0.002) and playfulness (p=0.002). More frequent use of bond-based methods was associated with higher closeness to their service dog (p=0.02). PTSD severity was not significantly associated with reported dog behavior, temperament, or veteran-service dog closeness. Conclusion. Military veterans with PTSD service dogs reported using many training methods that were associated with different outcomes. In general, the reported use of positive reinforcement or bond-based training methods were associated with reporting more positive outcomes while the reported use of positive punishment was associated with reporting more negative outcomes. Educating service dog organizations and recipients about the impacts of training methods could be beneficial for service dog efficacy and welfare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207