ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Dogs in the Workplace: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Challenges

MDPI
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH)
Authors:

Abstract

Pet dogs, therapy dogs, and service dogs can be seen in workplaces with increasing frequency. Although dogs may provide many benefits to employees and employers, their presence may introduce additional hazards and concerns to the work environment. Therefore, decisions to accept dogs in the workplace may include many considerations including the health, safety, and well-being of employees, legal and cultural sensitivities, and animal welfare. The present paper serves to introduce the issue of dogs in the workplace and outline the potential benefits and challenges to their presence. The legal accommodations afforded to certain types of dogs in workplace settings are discussed, and the research findings pertaining to the potential benefits of dogs on human health and well-being are summarized. The paper concludes with considerations for human resource management personnel in the areas of diversity, employee relations, ethics and corporate responsibility, organizational and employee development, safety and security, and legal considerations, as well as suggested topics for future research.
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Dogs in the Workplace: A Review of the Benefits and
Potential Challenges
Anne M. Foreman 1, *, Margaret K. Glenn 2, B. Jean Meade 3and Oliver Wirth 1
1National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Morgantown, WV 26505, USA; oaw5@cdc.gov
2College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA;
Margaret.glenn@mail.wvu.edu
3Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
WV 26505, USA; jmeade@cheatlakevets.com
*Correspondence: amforeman@cdc.gov; Tel.: +1-304-285-6169
Academic Editor: Jo Williams
Received: 24 March 2017; Accepted: 1 May 2017; Published: 8 May 2017
Abstract:
Pet dogs, therapy dogs, and service dogs can be seen in workplaces with increasing
frequency. Although dogs may provide many benefits to employees and employers, their presence
may introduce additional hazards and concerns to the work environment. Therefore, decisions
to accept dogs in the workplace may include many considerations including the health, safety,
and well-being of employees, legal and cultural sensitivities, and animal welfare. The present
paper serves to introduce the issue of dogs in the workplace and outline the potential benefits
and challenges to their presence. The legal accommodations afforded to certain types of dogs in
workplace settings are discussed, and the research findings pertaining to the potential benefits of
dogs on human health and well-being are summarized. The paper concludes with considerations
for human resource management personnel in the areas of diversity, employee relations, ethics and
corporate responsibility, organizational and employee development, safety and security, and legal
considerations, as well as suggested topics for future research.
Keywords: animal-assisted activities; animal-assisted interventions; pet effect; mental health
A survey by the American Veterinary Medical Association revealed that there were approximately
70 million pet dogs and 74 million pet cats in the United States in 2011 [
1
]. Sixty-three percent of those
surveyed considered their dog or cat to be a part of their family. Dogs are no longer confined to the
home environment; they are also appearing in increasing numbers in the workplace for assistance with
a disability, emotional support, or even companionship [
2
]. For example, prominent companies, such
as Google and Amazon, allow employees to bring their pet dogs to work [
3
], and the Friday following
Father’s Day each year has been designated “Take Your Dog To Work Day” since 1999 [
4
]. The 2015
Society for Human Resource Management’s Employee Benefits survey found that 8% of respondents
reported that their workplaces permitted pets, an increase from 5% in 2013 [
5
]. In addition to pet dogs,
service dogs may also be present in work environments to assist individuals with a disability. Despite
the increasing prevalence of dogs in the workplace, there is a dearth of scientific evidence regarding
the impact of dogs on performance, employee relations, workplace culture, and worker health and
safety. The present paper addresses the potential benefits, concerns, and challenges of accommodating
dogs in the workplace and highlights several factors and requisite conditions that can be considered by
employers, employees, and human resource personnel when deciding to accept a dog in the workplace.
Gaps in current knowledge, directions for future research studies, and considerations for human
resource personnel are also addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498; doi:10.3390/ijerph14050498 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 2 of 21
1. Types of Dogs in the Workplace
Dogs may be present in contemporary work settings for various reasons, but it is most common
perhaps to see a service dog accompany an employee with a disability. According to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Titles II and III, service dogs are individually trained to perform work
or tasks to assist an individual with a disability [
6
]. The nature of the disability may be physical, as
with a mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, or it may be psychological, as with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) or panic disorder. In cases involving a physical disability, a service dog may
be trained to help an individual use a wheelchair, retrieve items, open doors, navigate corridors and
streets, alert for alarms, and so on. With psychological disabilities, such as panic disorder, a service dog
may be trained to perform tasks that have therapeutic benefits, such as lying across an individual’s
lap during a panic attack to reduce the duration of the attack and associated symptoms of anxiety.
According to federal law, service dogs constitute a reasonable accommodation to an individual with a
disability in employment settings under Title I of the ADA [
6
]. An emotional support animal, a pet
that is not specially trained but provides emotional support to an individual with a disability, may also
constitute a reasonable accommodation in the workplace under Title I.
A visitation dog is another type of dog frequently seen in work settings. Visitation
animals, in general, refer to animals that accompany their owners on visits to healthcare and
educational settings to socialize with patients or students [
7
]. Visitation animals are usually
dogs, but they can also be other animals including but not limited to cats [
8
], birds [
9
], and
horses [
10
]. It is common to see visitation animals in healthcare settings, such as pediatric
hospitals [
11
14
], psychiatric hospitals [
15
20
], palliative care centers [
21
24
], and nursing
homes [
25
,
26
]. In educational settings, visitation animals are often present in elementary
schools [
27
30
] colleges [
31
,
32
], and libraries [
33
35
]. In most cases, visitation animals are present in a
setting for a few hours a day or week, but they may also be a constant presence. Resident dogs may
live in a facility or come to work every day with an employee [
36
,
37
]. Resident dogs are common in
nursing homes, child advocacy centers, and courtrooms [38].
Therapy dogs can also be found in workplaces. A therapy dog assists a professional service
provider (often in a healthcare setting) in the treatment or rehabilitation of a patient or client [
7
].
These dogs can be found accompanying occupational therapists [
39
,
40
], psychotherapists [
41
],
speech-language pathologists, physical therapists [
42
] and other professionals in the performance of
their job duties. In an occupational therapy setting, for example, a therapy dog can help improve
a patient’s gross motor skills through encouraging exercises such as grooming the dog, throwing a
ball, or walking with assistance from the dog [
43
]. In a psychotherapy setting, the dog may help the
therapist develop rapport with a client [44] or facilitate child therapy [45].
In other cases, employers are establishing pet-friendly workplaces that permit well-behaved
dogs regardless of an employee’s disability status. For example, Google, Amazon, and Etsy have
well-publicized policies permitting their employees to bring their dogs to work. In some cases, on-site
accommodations are provided for care and welfare of the dogs, including dog parks [
46
]. At the
Seattle headquarters of Amazon, for example, there are dog-sized water fountains next to the normal
fountains, containers of dog treats at the reception desks, and waste-bag dispensers outside along the
paths between buildings [47].
Although they may be present in some workplaces, this review does not include some categories
of assistance animals including public or military service animals (e.g., police dogs, military working
dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, etc.) or sporting, recreational, agricultural activity animals (e.g., herding
dogs, livestock guard dogs, etc.) [7]. These types of assistance animals have limited interactions with
the public or spend limited time within places of business. For example, police dogs spend the majority
of their time with their primary handlers and not in office settings [
48
]. Additionally, policies and
procedures for the care and training for many types of public or military service animals have already
been developed by city and state police departments [49,50].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 3 of 21
2. Accommodating Dogs in the Workplace
When considering the prospect of dogs in the workplace, it is important to know in which
situations dogs are discretionary and in which situations dogs are a legal accommodation. Employers
are obligated to allow dogs only in select circumstances [
51
]. An employee generally does not have a
legal argument for bringing a dog to work other than as an effective accommodation solution for a
functional limitation associated with a disability. According to Title I of the ADA [
6
], employers must
make “reasonable accommodations,” in the workplace for individuals with disabilities. A reasonable
accommodation is defined as a modification or an adjustment to a job or the work environment that
allows an employee with a disability to perform essential job functions [
52
]. Service dogs (and even
emotional support animals, because there is no specific definition of service animal under Title I)
can be considered a reasonable accommodation, however, the term reasonable is important in this
discussion. A service dog is not permitted into a workplace unconditionally. Employers may have
the right to deny a service dog access to the workplace if the dog constitutes an “undue hardship,”
defined as an act that requires significant difficulty or expense or fundamentally alters the nature of the
business [52]. For example, if an employee working in the clean room of a semiconductor fabrication
plant requests that she be allowed to bring her service dog to work with her, the employer may consider
this accommodation an undue hardship because the presence of the dog would fundamentally alter or
compromise the dust-free manufacturing environment.
The broader issue of access and the law is an important consideration for employers because the
needs of the individual with the service dog are often weighed against potential adverse effects of
the presence of the dog. For example, consider a situation in which an employee with a service dog
brings the dog to an office setting as a reasonable accommodation for a disability, and a co-worker
in an adjacent cubicle has a severe allergy to dogs. Because the dog is a service dog, and unless the
accommodation constitutes an undue hardship to the business, the employer will consider reasonable
accommodations which may include, for example, modifying the work environment (e.g., moving one
employee to an alternate work site) or rearranging work schedules (e.g., permitting the employees to
work alternate shifts or telework). It is important to note that the ADA only applies to a service dog or
other animal that assists a person with a disability in eliminating or mitigating barriers to completing
essential work tasks. If the dog is a visitation therapy dog or a pet, employers are not obligated
to make any accommodations, and thus the dog could be banned from the workplace. Awareness
and understanding of the legal obligations of employers under the ADA and relevant state laws are
critical to ensuring that both the employee with a disability and co-workers are treated fairly when
accommodations are considered and implemented [
53
]. For example, according the Revised Code
Title 49 Section 60.180 of Washington State, it is unfair to refuse to hire someone because they have a
service dog or to fire someone because they obtain one. Other states specify provisions for the use of
leave to acquire or train a service dog (e.g., Texas Government Code Title 6 Section 661.910).
3. Research on the Effects of Dogs on Mental Health and Well-Being in Humans
An employer’s decision to accept a dog in the workplace ought to take into account the potential
impacts to the health, safety, and well-being of co-workers, regardless of whether the decision
accommodates an employee with a disability or fulfills the employer’s desire to create a pet-friendly
workspace. When an employee brings a dog to work, whether as a service dog or pet, the effects on the
workplace extend beyond the employee. Indeed, the entire business milieu, including other co-workers,
managers, maintenance and custodial staff, and customers or clients, may be affected by the presence
of the dog. Some effects may be positive. For example, empirical evidence supports the notion that
dogs may provide social support [
54
], improve performance, and increase social interactions. However,
there may be other aspects to be considered related to health, safety, interpersonal, and cultural issues.
Although there is a dearth of definitive research studies on this topic, researchers have studied the
impact of dogs in the areas of social support and stress reduction, performance, health and safety, and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 4 of 21
social interactions. The following sections highlight major findings that may be taken into account in
decisions to accommodate dogs in the workplace.
3.1. Social Support and Stress Reduction
One potential benefit of dogs in the workplace is that they provide an additional source of social
support for the employee. The term “social support” is often used to describe the mechanisms by
which relationships with other people buffer individuals from stress [
55
]. For example, increased
social support was associated with lower levels of depression and better job performance in a survey
of 240 hospital workers [
56
], whereas low social support at work has been associated with diagnoses
of depression and anxiety [
57
]. In a qualitative study, social support was identified as a key factor in
whether people with serious mental illness return to work or remain employed [58].
Researchers investigating the role of pets in buffering stress reported that pets may serve as
a source of social support, perhaps more effectively than a spouse or close friends. For example,
Allen et al. [
54
] compared the effects of the presence of a spouse or a family pet on individuals’
cardiovascular responses to a stressful task. Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded during a
cold-pressor task (submerging a hand in ice water) and a mental-arithmetic task under one of three
conditions: alone (control condition), in the presence of a spouse, or in the presence of a pet. During the
pre-task baseline periods and the tasks, heart rate and blood pressure were significantly lower when a
pet was present than when a spouse was present. Furthermore, performance of the mental-arithmetic
task had the fewest errors in the condition with a pet present. Similar studies have found that the
presence of a dog reduced skin conductance responses [
59
] and salivary cortisol [
60
] to a significantly
greater degree than that of a human friend.
The nonevaluative (i.e., nonjudgmental) role of service dogs or pets may be an important
contributing factor to their therapeutic effects. Although not directly studied with dogs, similar
physiological effects have been obtained in studies with a friend present and when the experimental
design limited the possible evaluative role by the friend. For example, Kamarck et al. [
61
] administered
a mental arithmetic task and a concept formation task to 39 women while recording their heart rate
and blood pressure. The women performed these tasks either alone or in the presence of a friend.
To reduce the real or perceived evaluative role of the friend, the friend wore headphones that played
white noise and filled out questionnaires during the tasks. The women in the friend group had
significantly smaller increases in heart rate during both tasks than those who completed the tasks
alone. For instance, during the mental arithmetic task, heart rate increased an average of 8 beats per
minute for the friend group versus 18 beats per minute for the alone group. Although this experiment
did not directly compare nonevaluative and evaluative support by the friend, the findings support the
notion that the nonevaluative role of service dogs or pets may be an important contributing factor to
their therapeutic effects.
Other studies comparing only the presence versus the absence of a dog have observed lower
stress responses when the dog is present than when it is absent. For example, Friedmann et al. [
62
]
used a quiet-talk-quiet (QTQ) protocol during which older adults with hypertension sat quietly for two
minutes, talked to the experimenter for two minutes, and then sat quietly again for two minutes. The
QTQ protocol was conducted in the presence and absence of a friendly, unfamiliar dog. On average,
systolic and diastolic blood pressure was 7 and 2 mmHg lower, respectively, when participants spoke
with the dog present than when the dog was absent.
Two studies have examined the effects of dogs in the workplace on stress and well-being. In one
study of the effects of dogs in the workplace on employees’ self-reported stress, employees who did
and did not bring dogs to work completed a perceived stress survey several times throughout the work
day [
63
]. Employees who did not bring dogs to work had significantly higher perceived stress than
employees who did. To assess differences in stress, employees who brought their dogs to work were
instructed to leave them at home two days a week during the one-week study period. On days when
employees in the dog group did not bring their dogs to work, their stress levels increased throughout
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 5 of 21
the day, matching the pattern of employees who never brought dogs to work. In another study in
which participants who did and did not bring their pets to work were asked about the psychological
and organizational effects of dogs at work, the perceived benefits of dogs at work were greater for
those who brought their dogs to work compared with those who did not bring their dogs and those
who did not own pets [
64
]. Besides the apparent benefits of dog–human companionship at work, these
results suggest that the perceived benefits of dogs in the workplace may also depend on an existing
relationship with the dog present in the workplace. Indeed, the topic of dog-human relationships or
bonding is receiving more research attention [
65
] and this work may have important implications for
understanding the benefits of dogs to employees’ stress and well-being.
The aforementioned studies suggest that the presence of a dog is associated with reduction in
physiological indicators of stress (even more effectively than friends and family in some cases) and
improved performance, but other studies have not found such effects. In one study, 32 college students
were asked to complete mental arithmetic problems and the Thematic Apperception Test (in which the
subject interprets ambiguous pictures) while heart rate and blood pressure were measured [
66
]. Half
of the students completed the tasks in the presence of their pet dogs, and the other half completed
them alone. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for heart rate
or blood pressure during the tasks. Other similar studies have failed to find significant differences in
physiological measures of stress in the presence and absence of animals [
66
72
]. These inconsistencies
in findings may be due to small sample sizes, the use of insufficiently stressful stimuli, or lack of
control for other potentially influential factors. Additionally, in many studies, the physical movements
involved in petting and talking to the animals may have increased the blood pressure and heart rates
of the participants [
69
,
71
,
72
], obscuring any potential stress-relieving effects. It may also be the case,
however, that dogs do not provide acute decreases in stress and improvements in performance.
3.2. Task Performance
Besides evidence of stress reduction in the presence of dogs, some studies also reported
performance-related changes. A performance-enhancement effect of pets was found in a study
of pets and cardiovascular reactivity. Allen et al. [
73
] randomly assigned forty-eight individuals
with hypertension to a pet group or a non-pet group. Individuals in both groups began taking
hypertension medication, but only those assigned to the pet group were instructed to obtain a pet.
Both groups performed stress-inducing tasks (arithmetic and speech) before starting the medication
and obtaining the pet and after six months. For the pet group, the tasks were administered with
the pet present. Subjects who had acquired pets showed significantly greater improvements in their
performance of the arithmetic and speech tasks compared with those who had not. There were also
significant physiological differences between the groups at the six-month follow-up; those with pets
had statistically significantly lower mean heart rates (79 vs. 88 beats per minute (arithmetic) and 79 vs.
93 beats per minute (speech)) and lower mean systolic (130 vs. 139 mmHg (arithmetic) and 126 vs.
139 mmHg (speech)) and diastolic blood pressure (90 vs. 95 mmHg (arithmetic) and 89 vs. 99 mmHg
(speech)). The researchers frame these performance-enhancing and stress-decreasing responses in the
presence of pets as a form of social support.
3.3. Social Interactions
Another potential benefit of dogs in the workplace is that they may have a positive effect on
the social interactions among employees. Anecdotal reports suggest that pets enhance the social
atmosphere at work [
74
], and research conducted outside of the workplace indicates that dogs can
increase the frequency of conversations among people [
75
]. Other studies have been conducted to
assess the role of dogs in changing the interactions between strangers and among groups of people
who are familiar with one another.
Researchers have taken an experimental approach in assessing the role of dogs in changing social
interactions with acquaintances and strangers. Several studies have shown that when an individual
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 6 of 21
is accompanied by a dog, the frequency of social encounters with strangers increases. One such
study compared the approaches of strangers when a female confederate (an actor who is part of the
experiment and knows the aims of the study) was alone and when she was accompanied by different
types of dogs (e.g., adult Rottweiler, adult Labrador retriever, or juvenile Labrador retriever), a teddy
bear, or a potted plant [
75
]. Over 30% of strangers talked to the female confederate when she was
accompanied by an adult or juvenile Labrador retriever compared to less than 5% of strangers when
she was alone or accompanied by the teddy bear, potted plant, or Rottweiler. Another study had the
confederate take on a more active role, either soliciting strangers for money, dropping coins on the
ground, or asking young women for their phone numbers [
76
]. In all three scenarios, strangers were
more receptive to the confederate when the dog was present than when it was absent. Additionally,
studies conducted with individuals who use wheelchairs, a subset of the population who often benefit
from service dogs, have found that strangers are more likely to engage in conversations with them
when accompanied by a dog [77].
Because workers are more likely to encounter familiar co-workers and acquaintances than
strangers, it is unclear whether the research on social interactions among strangers is relevant. To date,
there have been no studies conducted on the presence of dogs in the workplace and its effects on the
frequency of social interactions among employees; however, results from the animal-assisted activities
literature may inform this unexplored research area. In animal-assisted activities, visitation therapy
dogs are taken to nursing homes, hospitals, schools, and other settings to visit the residents, patients,
or students [
78
]. Like co-workers in a workplace, patients in nursing homes and hospitals encounter
one another on a daily basis.
In a typical research study examining the effects of an animal visitation program on social
behavior (i.e., initiating conversation, smiling, laughing, etc.), interactions during animal-assisted
activity sessions are compared with control sessions in which the dog is absent. In one nursing-home
study, during 30-min sessions observers recorded the frequency of a variety of behaviors, including
non-attentive behavior (e.g., sleeping or reading), attentive and non-attentive listening, and social
behaviors towards other residents or towards the dog [
79
]. Verbal and non-verbal interactions
towards other residents occurred twice as often when the dog was present than when it was absent.
Similar studies also found increases in social interactions with the implementation of animal visitation
programs [8082].
One of the few studies that examined the perceptions of the impact of pets in the workplace
supports the hypothesis that dogs can increase social interactions and improve mood. College students
were presented with a picture of an office with a dog, cat, or no animal superimposed into the
picture [
83
]. They were asked to imagine that they were employees in this office and then answer
several survey questions about employee satisfaction and mood. Students who viewed the image that
included a dog or cat perceived that their mood would be better and that there would be a greater
number of social interactions than those students who viewed the picture without an animal. In a
similar study by the authors, college students rated a picture of a professor’s office with a dog, cat,
or no animal superimposed onto it [
2
]. When there was a dog in the office, students perceived the
professor to be friendlier than when a cat or no animal was present.
One potential disadvantage of increased social interactions among employees is the possible
distraction from an individual’s work tasks. Based on the results of the studies described above, it is
plausible to conclude that a dog in a workplace might invite unsolicited social attention from other
employees, which in turn serves as a distraction from work tasks. It is also possible that the initial
novelty of having a dog in the workplace may lead to a temporary decrease in productivity, but, as
employees habituate or become accustomed to the dog’s presence, the level of distraction may subside.
We are not aware of any research studies on the impact of dogs on workplace productivity.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 7 of 21
3.4. Limitations of Research Evidence
Although there has been a great number of research studies conducted in the area of
human–animal interactions, there are important caveats to the conclusions that can be drawn from the
results. For example, studies on the effects of dogs on social interactions and stress primarily consisted
of laboratory studies. The generalizability of laboratory studies can be limited due to the contrived
nature and high degree of control in laboratory settings; therefore, the results of these studies should
be interpreted with caution. Most of the studies also consisted of single, one-hour or shorter sessions,
and thus long-term effects are unknown. It is possible that the short-term reductions in stress are
transient or disappear altogether after frequent or regular exposure to a dog in the environment.
Methodological limitations are characteristic of other studies, especially those conducted on
animal-assisted interventions and activities in healthcare settings (e.g., nursing homes). The common
methodological shortcomings in these studies have been discussed elsewhere [
84
86
]. For example,
many studies fail to include control groups, randomize group assignment, standardize the therapy
sessions, and collect measures of inter-observer agreement [
84
]. Until methodologically stronger
studies are conducted, the conclusions drawn from studies that have been conducted should be
tentative at best.
4. Health, Safety, and Well-Being Issues
Whereas dogs may provide many benefits to people in the workplace, their presence may also
pose several hazards and risks. Some of these hazards and risks are related to health concerns that
would accompany non-human animals into any setting, including allergies and animal-borne diseases
(i.e., zoonoses). Other hazards and risks are related to safety concerns, like slip, trip, and fall hazards
and dog bites. Other issues pertain to employees’ psychosocial and cultural well-being.
4.1. Allergies
An estimated 15–30% of people with allergies have allergic reactions to dogs and cats [
87
]. Even
when dogs are not present, studies have shown that canis familiaris 1 (a major dog allergen) is
pervasive in public places [
88
]. Allergic reactions to dogs vary in intensity, and common symptoms
include swelling and itching of the membranes that line the eyes and nose, breathing problems, and
a rash on the face, neck, or chest [
87
]. Therefore, the threat of allergic reactions to the presence of
dog in the workplace is a real concern that faces employers, health and safety personnel, and human
resource staff.
Various methods exist to effectively reduce allergens in workplaces that allow dogs. The methods
have been implemented and used effectively in other workplaces that involve human–animal contact,
such as research laboratory workspaces [
89
]. Common methods include surveying employees to
assess existing allergies, limiting exposures to the animals, or providing sensitive employees with
personal protective equipment. Given that the major dog allergens are found in dander [
90
], workplace
exposure to allergens could be reduced by asking the dog owners to bathe their dogs regularly or
before bringing them in, as twice-a-week bathing has been shown to reduce allergens [
91
,
92
]. If the
dog present in the workplace is a service animal, this may be an unreasonable request as it would
likely place an undue burden on the handler with the disability. Air cleaners with high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters have been shown to reduce the amount of dog dander in the air [
93
].
Unsurprisingly, airborne dog dander levels are much lower when the dog is not in the room [
94
]
therefore, designating “dog-free” areas is an additional method that could be used to reduce dog
dander in workplace settings.
4.2. Zoonoses
The potential transmission of zoonoses is another health concern in the workplace. A zoonotic
disease is an infectious disease that can be transmitted between non-human animals and humans.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 8 of 21
Types of zoonoses common in dogs include internal and external parasites, viruses, bacteria, and
fungi [
95
]. Zoonoses can be spread through direct contact (e.g., via feces, urine, skin, respiratory
secretions) or indirect contact (e.g., via water or food that has been contaminated by the animal) [
95
].
As with many infectious diseases, children and immunocompromised individuals are at greater risk
for contracting zoonoses [96].
Controlling potential zoonoses associated with dogs in public settings is an ongoing concern.
Companion animals have been present in nursing homes and hospitals as part of animal-assisted
therapeutic activities for decades, and most institutions have developed and implemented policies
to help reduce the risks of zoonoses in these settings. These policies typically include instructions
for frequent hand washing, regular deworming and vaccination of the animals, and prompt removal
of animal waste [
97
]. For example, the University of Texas Medical Branch has a detailed policy for
animal-assisted therapy visits, including a specific protocol that includes checking the visiting animal
for the presence of bandages, signs of gastrointestinal disease, and respiratory disease [98].
4.3. Slip, Trip and Fall Hazard
Potential hazards of pets in the workplace also include environmental safety hazards. For example,
because dogs are low to the ground and often attached to leashes, dogs constitute both direct and
indirect fall hazards [
99
]. Dogs can cause falls directly when they pull an individual on a leash or when
someone trips over a dog lying on the floor. Indirect causes of falls occur when an individual trips over
a dog’s chew toy or slips in a puddle of water from a dog bowl spill. In 2006, falls associated with dogs
(not restricted to workplace exposure) and cats resulted in an estimated 86,000 injuries in the United
States [
100
]. According to studies that collected data on emergency room visits, the highest injury rates
occurred among people over 75 years of age, and the most common injury was fracture [99,100].
The risks of both indirect and direct causes of falls can be reduced with education and practice
considerations. The trip-and-fall risk associated with dogs could be communicated to all employees
through training to make employees cognizant of the potential hazard [
99
], leash lengths could be
limited to 4–6 feet to prevent falls associated with long or flexible, extendable leashes stretched across
hallways or rooms, and dog toys and bowls could be placed in designated spaces, away from frequently
trafficked areas. Individuals bringing their therapy dogs or pet dogs to work can be notified of such
protocols for reducing fall hazards and penalized for protocol violations. Note that service dogs are
typically trained to lie under desks and tables, away from doorways and hallways [
101
], minimizing
the risks.
4.4. Dog Bites
One of the most serious risks of permitting dogs in the workplace—and one of the most serious
concerns for the employer—is bites to employees or customers. According to some estimates, dogs
are most frequently responsible for animal bites to humans (80–90% of mammalian bites), followed
by cats (5–15%) [
102
,
103
]. Dog bites can range in severity from light bruising to serious lacerations,
tears, and crushing injuries. Most dog bites are not severe enough to require a hospital visit—only
approximately 17–18% of dog bites receive medical attention [104].
Although any dog is capable of biting, the dogs most often present in workplaces (e.g., those
selected for visitation therapy dog or service work) should have been extensively evaluated and tested
for calm, non-aggressive temperaments. In 1996, The Delta Society (now Pet Partners), a non-profit
organization that facilitates human–animal interactions for the benefit of human health, developed
standards of practice for the selection of visitation animals [
105
]. Other organizations that evaluate
and register visitation dogs, such as Therapy Dogs International, also have strict testing protocols
for evaluating potential therapy dogs [
106
]. These tests or standards are similar to the Canine Good
Citizen Test created by the American Kennel Club. To pass the Canine Good Citizen Test, the dog must
be able perform basic obedience tasks, such as walking calmly on a leash, greeting a friendly stranger,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 9 of 21
and coming when called [
107
]. If a dog shows any signs of aggression during testing (e.g., growling,
snarling, barking) the test ends and the dog does not pass.
An important consideration for employers is their legal responsibilities regarding dogs in the
workplace in the event that a dog injures an employee. Dog bite laws vary from state to state, and
the definition of owner or keeper of the dog is particularly important for employers. For example, in
the Oregon statutes, an owner is defined as any person having a right of property in an animal or who
harbors an animal or who has it in the care of the person, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits an
animal to remain or about any premises occupied by the person. [
108
]. Theoretically, an employer could
be personally liable as an owner or keeper of an employee’s dog in the workplace. In a court case in
Connecticut, the employer was not found to be a keeper. In LaVoy v. Rosenthal, in which the business
owner’s dog bit an employee (LaVoy), the judge found that because the dog did not aid in the business
operation and no other employee had dominion or control over the dog as a part of their work duties,
the corporation was not considered a keeper of the dog [
109
]. In a similar case, the court found that
the employer was not a keeper under the state’s strict liability dog-bite statute, but the employee could
still bring a claim of negligence against the employer for the injury that occurred at the work site [
110
].
Given the large amount of variability in state, county, and community statutes and regulations, it
is important to be knowledgeable about relevant laws in an employer’s location and to ensure that
appropriate insurance is carried by all parties.
4.5. Fear and Phobias
Some employees may be uncomfortable with a dog in the workplace because they are afraid
of them. A Gallup poll conducted in 2001 found that 11% of Americans surveyed were afraid of
dogs [
111
]. The intensity of the fear or anxiety responses can be mild or severe, as in a phobia. A dog
phobia is a type of animal-specific phobia, defined as a marked fear or anxiety about the animal at
levels that are out of proportion to the actual danger, active avoidance of the animal, and clinically
significant distress or impairment in social, occupation, or other areas of functioning. For someone with
a dog phobia, responses including fear, anxiety, and even panic may be triggered by the mere presence
of a dog or even images or thoughts about dogs [
112
]. Animal-specific phobias have a prevalence
rate in the general population that ranges from 3.3% to 7%, and the rate is similar across people of all
ages [113].
4.6. Cultural Sensitivities
In addition to dog fears and phobias, it is important for employers to consider the perceptions and
attitudes of employees regarding dogs in the workplace. Perceptions of dogs can differ appreciably
across different societies and cultures. For example, using dogs as a food source is a historical and
cultural practice in some countries such as South Korea and Vietnam [
114
], but it remains taboo in the
United States and other western cultures where dogs are kept only as pets. In some cultures, dogs are
considered to be “outside” animals or companions to be used for only specific tasks or work, such as
hunting or herding farm animals. In other cultures, dogs are not kept as pets because the transmission
of diseases, such as rabies, from dogs to humans is a significant concern [115].
Practitioners of some religions traditionally do not view animals as house pets. For example,
people who practice the religion of Islam often do not have a favorable attitude towards dogs and
having a dog as a pet is extremely uncommon in many predominately Muslim areas of the world [
116
].
In a study of attitudes toward pets in Kuwait, a country with a predominately Muslim population,
researchers found that ratings of Kuwaiti families’ “attachment” to their pets scored approximately one
standard deviation lower than the scores in a comparable study conducted in the United States [
117
].
Yet, there are Muslims who have countered with their own interpretation and embrace dogs [
118
].
Even so, employees with some religious or cultural heritages may find the prospect of sharing a
workspace with a dog objectionable.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 10 of 21
4.7. Welfare Concerns
Dogs may provide various benefits to employees in a workplace, but the care and welfare concerns
of the animal is an important consideration [
53
]. Animal welfare concerns are often described using
the Five Freedoms, a list of five statements describing what animals are entitled to written in 1965 in
the United Kingdom by a commission addressing welfare concerns in agricultural settings [
119
]. The
Five Freedoms are: (1) freedom from hunger or thirst, (2) freedom from discomfort, (3) freedom from
pain, injury or disease, (4) freedom to express (most) normal behavior, and (5) freedom from fear and
distress. These have been incorporated into the philosophies of many animal welfare organizations,
including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Shelter
Veterinarians, and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe.
The welfare concerns of dogs in laboratory and shelter settings also have been formally addressed.
Dogs have been used as subjects in psychological and biomedical research since at least the early
1800s [
120
]. Today, the use of dogs in research settings in the U.S. typically follows welfare guidelines,
such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, developed by the National Research
Council’s Institute for Laboratory Animal Research [
121
]. The guidelines specify the size, temperature,
and types of the enclosures, describe appropriate types of environmental enrichment (e.g., manipulable
toys), and provide recommendations for physical activity and exercise. The Association of Shelter
Veterinarians (ASV) created the Guidelines for Standards of Care for Animal Shelters, which describes
similar guidelines for cage sizes, enrichment, socialization, and cleaning. The ASV guidelines also
describe methods to reduce zoonoses and animal-related injuries to humans.
More recently, guidance has been provided for ensuring the welfare of therapy and assistance
animals [
122
]. Regardless of the setting, responsible pet owners, service-dog handlers, or therapy-dog
handlers must be sensitive to the health and well-being of his or her dog at all times. This includes
being aware of stressful environments and their effects on the dog, ensuring that the dog is allowed
ample time to engage in play and other species-typical behaviors, and accommodating changes in
energy levels due to old age. By making accommodation for dogs in the workplace, employers also
may bear some responsibility for ensuring that animal welfare concerns are continuously addressed.
Additional welfare considerations may need to be made in work environments in which multiple
dogs are present to ensure the safety of both dogs and employees. Fights between dogs have the
potential to injure both the dogs and the people attempting to separate them. Dog-to-dog interactions
are evaluated in the Canine Good Citizen Test [
123
], which is another benefit to using it to screen dogs
permitted in the workplace. Workplaces may wish to implement strict on-leash guidelines and plan
the work environment so that dogs are not close to one another to prevent conflict. Consulting with an
applied animal behaviorist for site-specific recommendations before permitting multiple dogs in the
work environment may also be advisable.
In addition to concerns about the well-being of the dog, the well-being of the service dog-handler
team is an important consideration. When service dogs become a part of the work environment,
employers can make a concerted effort to prepare the employees in the workplace by providing
education and training on service dog etiquette and establishing and respecting boundaries for all
employees. Any such interventions are typically planned with the service dog handler to respect their
privacy and autonomy [53].
5. Considerations for Human Resource Management Personnel
Until the knowledge gaps are filled by more empirical research and reports of successes and
failures, human resource personnel can carefully consider the wide range of issues that are associated
with the decision to accept dogs in the workplace. The potential benefits and appropriateness of
dogs in the workplace can be evaluated with respect to employee well-being, job performance, health
and safety, and social interactions. Human resource management personnel may frame their policies
and practices around an understanding of important differences among introducing a visitation
dog, opening the workplace to employees’ pets, and accommodating an employee with a service
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 11 of 21
dog. Exploratory research on service dogs in the workplace has called for caution in implementing
employment site policies and procedures [
124
]. A service dog team can work directly with the
employer to ameliorate the concerns in the process of requesting an accommodation for a dog to assist
with essential functions of the job. It is important to protect privacy and minimize potential stigma
associated with disclosure of details related to a person’s disability and avoid policies that would
create undue hardship for an employee [
53
]. For the employee with a disability, the dog is not a pet
or in the workplace for the benefit of all employees but a working dog that is part of an essential
support system.
Based on the current, albeit limited evidence base, we offer the following specific considerations
for human resource personnel tasked with addressing the inclusion of pets in the workplace in six topic
areas of diversity, employee relations, ethics and corporate responsibility, organizational and employee
development, safety and security, and legal policy (see Table 1). Related to issues of diversity, it is
important to recognize the cultural or religious perspectives of employees toward dogs and, if possible,
seek appropriate accommodations for their beliefs and preferences. This can be accomplished only if
employers are informed. Thus, we suggest that employers develop a procedure to assess employees’
attitudes, beliefs, and opinions concerning the presence of dogs in the workplace. The method of
assessment can be formal (e.g., surveys) or informal (e.g., focus groups), but conducting them regularly
can help capture any changes in employee perceptions. Administering a “pet attitude” questionnaire,
such as the Pet Attitude Scale [
125
] or the Measure of Human–Animal Bond [
126
], may be a useful
tool to assess an individual’s attitudes towards dogs and other animals. Additionally, an article by
Cash and Gray [
127
] provides a framework for accommodating different religions in the workplace
that may be helpful.
Table 1. Considerations and suggested resources for additional guidance for accommodating dogs in
the workplace.
Topic Area Considerations Resources
Diversity
Establish formal or informal procedures for periodically assessing
employee attitudes, beliefs and preferences concerning dogs in
the workplace.
Develop policies and procedures for accommodating employees with
special concerns (e.g., cultural/religious beliefs, fears, or phobias) in a
sensitive and confidential manner.
Cash and Gray [127]
Employee
Relations
Form a “Dog Committee” with employees and management to provide a
forum in which employee questions and concerns related to dogs in the
work environment can be addressed.
Morse, et al. [128]
Ethics and
Corporate
Responsibility
Establish temperament/behavioral requirements for dogs (e.g., passing the
AKC Canine Good Citizen test or similar assessment). Develop policies and
procedures for the treatment and care of dogs while in the workplace;
explicate the responsibilities of the dog owner and the employer.
American Kennel Club [123]
National Research
Council [129]
Newbury, et al. [130]
Serpell, et al. [122]
Organizational
and Employee
Development
Establish formal or informal procedures for evaluating the impact of dogs
in the workplace on employee morale, well-being, productivity, etc.
Establish a continuous improvement process to address concerns and
maximize the effectiveness of the dog program.
The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health [131]
Safety and
Security
Develop policies and procedures to help prevent or reduce the incidence of
slips, trips and falls in dog areas.
Develop training materials to ensure that dog owners are educated on their
responsibilities in maintaining a safe and healthy work environment.
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration [132]
Legal
Considerations
Understand the federal, state, and local laws regarding accommodating
individuals with disabilities and their service dogs.
Understand the state and local laws regarding identification, vaccination,
and leashing for pet dogs.
Establish clear eligibility criteria for both dogs and their employee owners.
For example, specify specific training requirements for employees and
breed/heath/behavioral requirements for dogs.
Seek legal counsel to review all policies and procedures concerning the
accommodation of dogs in the workplace.
Job Accommodation
Network [133]
Michigan State University
School of Law [134]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 12 of 21
Allowing pets in the workplace undoubtedly affects employee relations. To avoid potential
conflicts, it is important to devise a strategy for incorporating employee input into decisions involving
dogs in the workplace. Some employees may be hesitant to express their reservations or concerns
because of fear of judgment by other employees, so an avenue for anonymous submission of feedback
may be appropriate. One approach for handling concerns that has been adopted at some pet-friendly
workplaces where there are multiple pet dogs present is the creation of a “Dog Committee”, which
is a special committee of employees to evaluate issues and concerns related to the dogs as they arise.
Milgate et al. [
135
] describe best practices for safety committees based on the results of a literature
review, and their recommendations may be helpful in defining the role and duties of a workplace
dog committee. Some of their recommendations include strong management commitment, effective
communication among all stakeholders, and input from a health and safety professional. Additionally,
to accommodate workers with dog-related fears or phobias, employers could provide them with
an opportunity to privately disclose their fears or anxiety to their supervisors or human resources
personnel. Accordingly, the employer may wish to designate “dog-free” areas to ease the anxiety of
some individuals. The employer or human resource managers will need to determine at what point
the objections of one or more employees to the inclusion of dogs are sufficient to limit or exclude dogs
from the workplace.
Ethical and animal welfare concerns are important considerations for companies. Accordingly,
the development of policies and procedures for the treatment and care of dogs in the workplace is an
important step towards ensuring that dogs are treated humanely. This holds true for service dogs and
would support successful integration of a service dog team [
53
]. Although “best practices” for the
development of such guidelines have yet to be elucidated, the process can involve collaboration among
all stakeholders in an organization, including executives, managers, supervisors, employees (especially
if the employee is a service dog handler), and (if appropriate) customers. Although published guidance
specific to the care of dogs in pet-friendly workplaces is limited, there are resources from other arenas
that may be helpful. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals may be helpful in
understanding humane and accepted practices and standards to ensure animal welfare. Although
The Guide and other similar resources are intended for research and laboratory settings, they address
many of the important animal welfare and employee health and safety concerns. Additionally,
welfare guidelines for therapy and assistance animals may also aid in the development of policies
and procedures [
122
]. To decrease the risk of dog bites or other safety and health risk caused by
ill-mannered dogs, employers may wish to require that all pet dogs pass a temperament test, such as
the American Kennel Club’s Canine Good Citizen Test [
123
]. Dogs that pass the test have demonstrated
to a certified evaluator that it can calmly accept a friendly stranger, walk on a loose leash, and remain
calm when separated from its owner.
The popularity of pet-friendly workplaces seems to hinge on expectations of positive benefits to
employee morale and well-being. However, until these expectations are confirmed through actual
experience or empirical research studies, employers may consider implementing a system for regularly
assessing the impact of their own policies. We suggest that companies use anonymous surveys,
focus groups, interviews, direct observations, or other methods to help assess and monitor over
time the impact of dogs in the workplace. These tools or methods could assess a broad range of
important employee and organizational outcomes, such as employee attitudes, perceptions, and
morale, employee performance and productivity, frequency, duration, and quality of interpersonal and
social interactions, absenteeism, and turnover rates. Furthermore, assessment of these outcomes can
inform a continuous improvement process, which we suggest to address any concerns that arise and
to promote or maximize the overall effectiveness of the program at both employee and organizational
levels. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)’s Total Worker Health
website offers a list of resources for implementing and evaluating workplace health programs [
131
].
Resources include the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthy Worksite
Program (NHWP) Health and Safety Climate Survey (INPUTS) [
136
], a short survey used to assess
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 13 of 21
employee perceptions of the work environment, and the Center for Promotion and Health in the
New England Workplace Healthy Workplace Participatory Program [
137
], an interactive assessment
and planning process for workplace health programs, among others.
The safety and security of employees is always a high priority, thus it is important to establish
policies and procedures to address employee health and safety concerns associated with dogs in the
workplace. These policies and procedures could identify and describe the potential hazards and risks,
specify appropriate safety control measures, and identify whether any special skills or employee
training is required. At a minimum, we would suggest specific procedures to help prevent or reduce
incidence of slips, trips, and falls in areas where dogs are permitted, reduce the risks of zoonotic disease
transmission (e.g., require the owners to administer monthly flea and tick treatments), and facilitate
the safe evacuation of employees and dogs during emergencies. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)’s website has guidance on OSHA standards, hazards and solutions, and
hazard evaluation that may be helpful [
132
]. For example, employers can use the Hazard Identification
Training Tool to help them learn the core concepts of hazard identification. Training materials for dog
owners could be developed to ensure that they are educated on their responsibilities in maintaining a
safe and healthy work environment.
Because the adoption of dog-friendly policies can pose several questions and concerns about legal
liabilities, it is important to understand the federal, state, and local laws regarding the presences of dogs
in public spaces in addition to the accommodation of service animals for individuals with disabilities.
Important considerations include ensuring that all parties carry appropriate liability insurance
policies and ensuring that dog owners have complied with all state- or municipality-mandated
taxes, vaccinations, and identification for their dogs before granting them access to the workplace.
Awareness of applicable leash and identification laws in the state or municipality are also critical, and
employees would benefit from receiving clear guidelines for handling the dog when they are coming
in and out of work and when taking their dogs outside for breaks. To ensure that practices related to
considering requests for accommodation of a service dog are compliant with relevant laws, we suggest
that employers seek legal counsel or contact the Job Accommodation Network, a federally-funded
resource that offers free guidance to employers [133].
6. Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Directions
Although there may be benefits to allowing dogs in the workplace, many questions still remain
about the short- and long-term effects of dogs in work settings. Efforts to bridge the knowledge gaps
in these areas will help employers and human resource personnel make informed decisions about the
potential benefits and challenges of accommodating dogs in the workplace. The issue is complex and
requires the efforts of multiple professional and scientific disciplines. A list of knowledge gaps and
suggested research topics for each discipline appears in Table 2. Because the presence of a dog in the
workplace is likely to impact organizational policies, business functions, and interpersonal dynamics,
human resource management personnel will be central to decision and policy making. Perhaps the
greatest need is for tools that are designed to assess the impact of dogs in the workplace on employees
or business operations. Currently, there are few, if any, tools or methods specifically designed to
assess the impact of dogs on organizational operations and productivity, employee attitudes and
perceptions, or employee social interactions. Another fruitful topic for research is to review and
analyze the experiences of organizations that allow dogs in the workplace. A better accounting of
these experiences across many different sizes and types of business can help employers and human
resource personnel benchmark successful organizational policies, procedures, and practices.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 14 of 21
Table 2.
Knowledge gaps and suggested research topics related to the accommodation of dogs in
the workplace.
Focus Area Research Topics
Human
Resource
Management
Develop tools (e.g., surveys or interviews) for assessing the potential impact of dogs in the
workplace on employees and operations.
Develop tools (e.g., surveys or interviews) for assessing the attitudes and perceptions of
employees in dog-friendly workplaces.
Assess what policies and practices are being implemented in dog-friendly workplaces to
accommodate employees with dog fears or phobias.
Assess what policies and practices are being implemented in workplaces that permit dogs
but also have employees with pet dander allergies.
Assess the impact of the presence of dogs in the workplace on employee relations.
Occupational
Health and
Safety
Conduct surveillance or epidemiological research studies to document the prevalence and
severity of injuries and zoonotic diseases in workplace settings where pets are present.
Evaluate the effectiveness of safety and health precautions currently being implemented by
workplaces that permit animals and identify and best practices.
Develop tools or methods that can be used to assess the hazards, risks, and impact of dogs
in the workplace.
Identify/assess the potential hazards and risks of dogs in the workplace, including the risk
of zoonotic diseases.
Identify and evaluate specific engineering or administrative controls that reduce the
hazards and risks associated with dogs in the workplace.
Evaluate the effectiveness of specific safety and health controls (e.g., high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters to reduce dog dander in workplace settings).
Behavioral and
Social Science
Investigate the impact of the presence of dogs in the workplace on employee morale,
productivity, and well-being.
Examine whether dogs in the workplace improve the attitudes, mood, perceptions, and
performance of employees.
Investigate the effect of dog-friendly work policies on organization climate/culture and
employees‘ perceptions of the organization and working conditions.
Evaluate the effects of dog-friendly policies on the public‘s perceptions of the company.
The addition of dogs to a work setting can also create concerns related to occupational health
and safety, such as potential disease transmission from animals to humans and the introduction
of new workplace hazards and risks (e.g., bites, slips, trips, and falls). Because little information
is available on the incidence or prevalence of zoonotic disease transmission in workplaces with
pet-friendly policies, researchers should conduct targeted surveillance and epidemiological research
studies on the safety and health impact of dogs in the workplace. Also needed are evaluations of
existing company practices and policies regarding prophylactic measures implemented by employers
to prevent zoonoses, such as regular flea and tick treatments, veterinary evaluation of stool samples
for parasites, regular vaccinations, and other such protocols. Research is also needed to document the
incidence and prevalence of injury-related hazards and risks associated with dogs in the workplace.
Surveillance and epidemiology studies can help to reveal the nature and extent of any adverse safety
and health consequences and evaluate the effectiveness of various engineering or administrative
controls for reducing the hazards and risks associated with dogs in the workplace.
Seeking a better understanding of the human–animal bond and the many purported psychosocial
and organizational benefits of dogs or other pets in the workplace offers other fruitful areas for research.
There have been a large number of studies conducted on the effects of dogs on the mental health
of children [
138
], older adults [
89
], and patients in psychiatric care settings [
19
], but there has been
comparatively less research conducted on the effects of dogs on adult well-being in the workplace.
More research studies are needed to understand the impact of dog-friendly policies on employees both
before and after the introduction of dogs on measures of perceived stress and work load, performance
and productivity, employee relations, organizational climate/culture, absenteeism, and other employee
and organizational outcomes. Another research question concerns the long-term maintenance of any
positive effects of dogs in the workplace. Some have raised the notion that the introduction of dogs
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 15 of 21
produces only short-term improvements in health and well-being, and that the positive aspects
dissipate as the novelty of the dogs’ presence wears off [
139
]. Longitudinal studies, in which impact is
assessed over time, would help to address this question. A final research question concerns the impact
of dog-friendly corporate policies on public perceptions. The reporting of pet-friendly corporate
policies of companies in the popular press [
140
] has perhaps contributed to positive public reactions,
but more research is needed to compare similar businesses with and without dog-friendly policies
to better understand whether these policies support a competitive advantage, not only in relation to
consumer preferences but also by attracting and retaining the most qualified employees.
7. Conclusions
Given that many individuals in today’s workforce struggle with long work hours, increasing job
demands, and high stress, the notion of dog-friendly work settings to help mitigate these stressors
has great appeal to both employees and employers. Indeed, the benefits of dog-friendly work
places may manifest as lower rates of absenteeism and higher worker morale and productivity.
Beyond employers’ broad desires to create a pet-friendly work environment, employers who are only
accommodating service dogs would be well-served to do so with care and consideration for all parties
involved. Although several knowledge gaps exist concerning specific benefits, concerns, and challenges
associated with accommodating dogs in the workplace, employers and human resource personnel can
attempt to weigh the potential benefits of welcoming dogs in the workplace with the related health,
safety, psychosocial, and animal welfare concerns using available resources. The decision to accept
dogs or other animals into a work setting is complex and ought to be made with careful consideration
of all relevant factors.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank Penelope Baughman and Linda Batiste for comments on
earlier versions of the paper.
Author Contributions:
Anne M. Foreman and Oliver Wirth conducted the background literature searches,
evaluated the research evidence, and drafted most of the content. B. Jean Meade contributed much of the content
for the zoonosis and health/safety sections. Margaret K. Glenn contributed much of the content pertaining to the
sections on legal accommodations, employee welfare, and human resource management. All authors contributed
equally to the recommendations and final editing.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The findings and conclusions in this report are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health.
References
1.
American Veterinary Medical Association. U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook; American
Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumberg, IL, USA, 2012.
2.
Wells, M.; Perrine, R. Pets go to college: The influence of pets on students’ perceptions of faculty and their
offices. Anthrozoös 2001,14, 161–168. [CrossRef]
3.
Morris, C. 10 Companies That Let You Bring Your Dog to Work. Available online: http://www.cnbc.com/
2014/02/11/10-companies-that-let- you-bring-your-dog-to-work.html (accessed on 24 March 2017).
4.
Pet Sitters International. Take Your Dog to Work Day. Available online: https://www.petsit.com/
takeyourdog (accessed on 24 March 2017).
5.
Daniels, J. More Firms Allowing Dogs (and Other Pets) in the Office. Available online: http://
www.cnbc.com/2015/10/15/more-firms-allowing-dogs-and-other-pets-in-the-office.html (accessed on
24 March 2017).
6.
101st United States Congress. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; 101st United States Congress:
Washington, DC, USA, 1990.
7.
Parenti, L.; Foreman, A.; Jean Meade, B.; Wirth, O. A revised taxonomy of assistance animals. J. Rehabil.
Res. Dev. 2013,50, 745–756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Brickel, C.M. The therapeutic roles of cat mascots with a hospital-based geriatric population: A staff survey.
Gerontologist 1979,19, 368–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 16 of 21
9.
Holcomb, R.; Jendro, C.; Weber, B.; Nahan, U. Use of an aviary to relieve depression in elderly males.
Anthrozoös 1997,10, 32–36. [CrossRef]
10.
Bachi, K. Equine-facilitated psychotherapy: The gap between practice and knowledge. Soc. Anim.
2012
,20,
364–380. [CrossRef]
11.
Urbanski, B.L.; Lazenby, M. Distress among hospitalized pediatric cancer patients modified by pet-therapy
intervention to improve quality of life. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2012,29, 272–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12.
Tsai, C.C.; Friedmann, E.; Thomas, S.A. The effect of animal-assisted therapy on stress responses in
hospitalized children. Anthrozoös 2010,23, 245–258. [CrossRef]
13.
Gagnon, J.; Bouchard, F.; Landry, M.; Belles-Isles, M.; Fortier, M.; Fillion, L. Implementing a hospital-based
animal therapy program for children with cancer: A descriptive study. Can. Oncol. Nurs. J.
2004
,14, 217–222.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Bouchard, F.; Landry, M.; Belles-Isles, M.; Gagnon, J. A magical dream: A pilot project in animal-assisted
therapy in pediatric oncology. Can. Oncol. Nurs. J. 2003,14, 14–17. [CrossRef]
15.
Kovács, Z.; Kis, R.; Rózsa, S.; Rózsa, L. Animal-assisted therapy for middle-aged schizophrenic patients
living in a social institution. A pilot study. Clin. Rehabili. 2004,18, 483–486. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Marr, C.A.; French, L.; Thompson, D.; Drum, L.; Greening, G.; Mormon, J.; Henderson, I.; Hughes, C.W.
Animal-assisted therapy in psychiatric rehabilitation. Anthrozoös 2000,13, 43–47. [CrossRef]
17.
Snipelisky, D.; Burton, M.C. Canine-assisted therapy in the inpatient setting. South. Med. J.
2014
,107, 265–273.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Villatra-Gil, V.; Roca, M.; Gonzalez, N.; Domènec, E.; Cuca; Escanilla, A.; Asensio, M.R.; Esteban, M.E.;
Ochoa, S.; Haro, J.M. Dog-assisted therapy in the treatment of chronic schizophrenia inpatients. Anthrozoös
2009,22, 149–159. [CrossRef]
19.
Chu, C.-I.; Liu, C.-Y.; Sun, C.-T.; Lin, J. The effect of animal-assisted activity on inpatients with schizophrenia.
J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv. 2009,47, 42–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Beck, A.M.; Seraydarian, L.; Hunter, G.F. Use of animals in the rehabilitation of psychiatric inpatients.
Psychol. Rep. 1986,58, 63–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21.
Geisler, A.M. Companion animals in palliative care: Stories from the bedside. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med.
2004
,
21, 285–288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22.
Chinner, T.L.; Dalziel, F.R. An exploratory study on the viability and efficacy of a pet-facilitated therapy
project within a hospice. J. Palliat. Care 1991,7, 13–20. [PubMed]
23.
Chur-Hansen, A.; Zambrano, S.C.; Crawford, G.B. Furry and feathered family members—A critical review
of their role in palliative care. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 2014,31, 672–677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Engelman, S.R. Palliative care and use of animal-assisted therapy. Omega: J. Death Dying
2013
,67, 63–67.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Maji´c, T.; Gutzmann, H.; Heinz, A.; Lang, U.E.; Rapp, M.A. Animal-assisted therapy and agitation and
depression in nursing home residents with dementia: A matched case–control trial. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry
2013,21, 1052–1059. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Perelle, I.B.; Granville, D.A. Assessment of the effectiveness of a pet facilitated therapy program in a nursing
home setting. Soc. Anim. 1993,1, 91–100. [CrossRef]
27.
Barker, S.B.; Best, A.M.; Fredrickson, M.; Hunter, G. Constraints in assessing the impact of animals in
education. Anthrozoös 2000,13, 74–79. [CrossRef]
28.
Chandler, C.K. Animal-Assisted Therapy in Counseling and School Settings; ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling
and Student Services: Greensboro, NC, USA, 2001.
29.
Jalongo, M.R.; Astorino, T.; Bomboy, N. Canine visitors: The influence of therapy dogs on young children’s
learning and well-being in classrooms and hospitals. Early Child. Educ. J. 2004,32, 9–16. [CrossRef]
30.
Kotrschal, K.; Ortbauer, B. Behavioral effects of the presence of a dog in a classroom. Anthrozoös
2003
,16,
147–159. [CrossRef]
31.
Chanen, J.S. Going to the dogs: New addition to Yale’s law library—Therapy dog Monty. ABA J.
2011
,97, 14.
32.
Reynolds, J.A.; Rabschutz, L. Studying for exams just got more relaxing—Animal-assisted activities at the
university of connecticut library. Coll. Undergrad. Libr. 2011,18, 359–367. [CrossRef]
33.
Biden, A. “Who is the four-legged librarian?” Upland public library trains a guide dog. Child. Libr.
2004
,2,
44–47.
34. Francis, A. Thursdays with MacGyver. Child. Libr. 2009,7, 50–52.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 17 of 21
35.
Pacini, D. Opinion piece: Breaking down barriers: Dogs and cats in public libraries. Fac. Inf. Q.
2009
,1, 1–4.
36.
McCabe, B.W.; Baun, M.M.; Speich, D.; Agrawal, S. Resident dog in the Alzheimer’s special care unit. West. J.
Nurs. Res. 2002,24, 684–696. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Winkler, A.; Fairnie, H.; Gericevich, F.; Long, M. The impact of a resident dog on an institution for the elderly:
Effects on perceptions and social interactions. Gerontologist 1989,29, 216–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Courthouse Dogs Foundation. 2016. Available online: http://courthousedog.com/index.html (accessed on
24 March 2017).
39.
Sams, M.J.; Fortney, E.V.; Willenbring, S. Occupational therapy incorporating animals for children with
autism: A pilot investigation. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2006,60, 268–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Casey, H.M. A survey of occupational therapists using pet-facilitated therapy. Home Health Care Manag. Pract.
1996,8, 10–17. [CrossRef]
41.
Fine, A.H.; O’Callaghan, D.M.; Chandler, C.K.; Schaffer, K.; Pichot, T.; Gimeno, J. Application of
Animal-Assisted Interventions in Counseling Settings: An Overview of Alternatives. In Handbook on
Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines; Fine, A.H., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego,
CA, USA, 2010; pp. 193–222.
42. Smith, R. Rehab’s PhDog. Rehab. Manag. 1995,8, 49–52. [PubMed]
43.
Velde, B.P.; Cipriani, J.; Fisher, G. Resident and therapist views of animal-assisted therapy: Implications for
occupational therapy practice. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2005,52, 43–50. [CrossRef]
44.
Kruger, K.A.; Serpell, J.A. Animal Assisted Interventions in Mental Health: Definitions and Theoretical
Foundations. In Handbook on Animal Assisted Therapy, 3rd ed.; Serpell, J.A., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY,
USA, 2010; pp. 33–48.
45.
Parish-Plass, N. Animal-assisted therapy with children suffering from insecure attachment due to abuse and
neglect: A method to lower the risk of intergenerational transmission of abuse? Clin. Child Psychol. Psychiatry
2008,13, 7–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46.
Bishop, T. Dog-Friendly Amazon Plans a Place for Pooches in New Downtown Seattle Campus. Available
online: https://www.geekwire.com/2012/dogfriendly-amazon-creates-special-place-canines- campus/
(accessed on 24 March 2017).
47.
Pregulman, R. Amazon: Dog Friendly Seattle’s Dog Friendliest Company. Available online: http://www.
seattledogspot.com/dog-friendly-businesses/amazon-dog- friendly-seattles-dog- friendliest-company/
(accessed on 24 March 2017).
48.
Sanders, C.R. “The dog you deserve”: Ambivalence in the k-9 officer/patrol dog relationship. J. Contemp.
Ethnogr. 2006,35, 148–172. [CrossRef]
49.
City of Cincinnati. Canine Operations. Available online: http://cincinnati-oh.gov/police/assets/File/
Procedures/12140.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2017).
50.
State of New Jersey. K-9 Training Standards and Qualification Requirements for New Jersey Law
Enforcement. Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/oag/dcj/agguide/k9_policy_2002.pdf (accessed on
24 March 2017).
51.
Ensminger, J.J. Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society: Science, Law and the Evolution of Canine Caregivers;
Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, IL, USA, 2010.
52.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Americans with Disabilities Act: Questions and Answers;
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
53.
Glenn, M.K. An exploratory study of the elements of successful service dog partnerships in the workplace.
ISRN Rehabil. 2013,2013, 1–10. [CrossRef]
54.
Allen, K.M.; Blascovich, J.; Mendes, W.B. Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and
spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosom. Med. 2002,64, 727–739. [PubMed]
55.
Cohen, S.; McKay, G. Social support, stress, and the buffering hypothesis: A theoretical analysis. In Handbook
of Psychology and Health; Baum, A., Taylor, S.E., Singer, J.E., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale,
NJ, USA, 1984; Volume 4.
56.
Park, K.; Wilson, M.G.; Lee, M.S. Effects of social support at work on depression and organizational
productivity. Am. J. Health Behav. 2004,28, 444–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Sinokki, M.; Hinkka, K.; Ahola, K.; Koskinen, S.; Kivimäki, M.; Honkonen, T.; Puukka, P.; Klaukka, T.;
Lönnqvist, J.; Virtanen, M. The association of social support at work and in private life with mental health
and antidepressant use: The health 2000 study. J. Affect. Disord. 2009,115, 36–45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 18 of 21
58.
Dunn, E.C.; Wewiorski, N.J.; Rogers, E.S. A qualitative investigation of individual and contextual factors
associated with vocational recovery among people with serious mental illness. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry
2010
,
80, 185–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Allen, K.M.; Blascovich, J.; Tomaka, J.; Kelsey, R.M. Presence of human friends and pet dogs as moderators
of autonomic responses to stress in women. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1991,61, 582–589. [CrossRef]
60.
Polheber, J.; Matchock, R. The presence of a dog attenuates cortisol and heart rate in the trier social stress test
compared to human friends. J. Behav. Med. 2013,37, 860–867. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Kamarck, T.W.; Manuck, S.B.; Jennings, J.R. Social support reduces cardiovascular reactivity to psychological
challenge: A laboratory model. Psychosom. Med. 1990,52, 42–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62.
Friedmann, E.; Thomas, S.A.; Cook, L.K.; Tsai, C.; Picot, S.J. A friendly dog as potential moderator of
cardiovascular response to speech in older hypertensives. Anthrozoös 2007,20, 51–63. [CrossRef]
63.
Barker, R.T.; Knisely, J.S.; Barker, S.B.; Cobb, R.K.; Schubert, C.M. Preliminary investigation of employee’s
dog presence on stress and organizational perceptions. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag.
2012
,5, 15–30.
[CrossRef]
64.
Wells, M.; Perrine, R. Critters in the cube farm: Perceived psychological and organizational effects of pets in
the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001,6, 81–87. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Payne, E.; Bennett, P.C.; McGreevy, P.D. Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human
dyad. Psychol. Res. Behave. Manag. 2015,8, 71–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66.
Grossberg, J.M.; Alf, E.F.; Vormbrock, J.K. Does pet dog presence reduce human cardiovascular responses to
stress? Anthrozoös 1988,2, 38–44. [CrossRef]
67.
Gaydos, L.S.; Farnham, R. Human-animal relationships within the context of Rogers’ principle of integrality.
Adv. Nurs. Sci. 1988,10, 72–80. [CrossRef]
68.
Hansen, K.M.; Messinger, C.J.; Baun, M.M.; Megel, M. Companion animals alleviating distress in children.
Anthrozoös 1999,12, 142–148. [CrossRef]
69.
Nagengast, S.L.; Baun, M.M.; Megel, M.; Leibowitz, J.M. The effects of the presence of a companion animal
on physiological arousal and behavioral distress in children during a physical examination. J. Pediatr. Nurs.
1997,12, 323–330. [CrossRef]
70.
Straatman, I.; Hanson, E.K.S.; Endenburg, N.; Mol, J.A. The influence of a dog on male students during a
stressor. Anthrozoös 1997,10, 191–197. [CrossRef]
71.
Vormbrock, J.K.; Grossberg, J.M. Cardiovascular effects of human-pet dog interactions. J. Behav. Med.
1988
,
11, 509–517. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72.
Wilson, C.C. The pet as an anxiolytic intervention. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.
1991
,179, 482–489. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
73.
Allen, K.M.; Shykoff, B.E.; Izzo, J.L., Jr. Pet ownership, but not ACE Inhibitor Therapy, blunts home blood
pressure responses to mental stress. Hypertension 2001,38, 815–820. [PubMed]
74.
Tarkan, L. The Perks of Bringing Your Pet to Work. Available online: http://www.foxnews.com/health/
2013/06/18/perks-bringing-your-pet-to-work.html (accessed on 24 March 2017).
75.
Wells, D.L. The facilitation of social interactions by domestic dogs. Anthrozoös
2004
,17, 340–352. [CrossRef]
76.
Guéguen, N.; Ciccotti, S. Domestic dogs as facilitators in social interaction: An evaluation of helping and
courtship behaviors. Anthrozoös 2008,21, 339–349. [CrossRef]
77.
Mader, B.; Hart, L.A.; Bergin, B. Social acknowledgments for children with disabilities: Effects of service
dogs. Child Dev. 1989,60, 1529–1534. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78.
Fine, A.H. Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, 3rd ed.;
Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2010.
79.
Fick, K.M. The influence of an animal on social interactions of nursing home residents in a group setting.
Am. J. Occup. Ther. 1993,47, 529–534. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80.
Bernstein, P.L.; Friedmann, E.; Malaspina, A. Animal-assisted therapy enhances resident social interaction
and initiation in long-term care facilities. Anthrozoös 2000,13, 213–224. [CrossRef]
81.
Hall, P.L.; Malpus, Z. Pets as therapy: Effects on social interaction in long-stay psychiatry. Br. J. Nurs.
2000
,9,
2220–2225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Kongable, L.G.; Buckwalter, K.C.; Stolley, J.M. The effects of pet therapy on the social behavior of
institutionalized Alzheimer’s clients. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 1989,3, 191–198. [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 19 of 21
83.
Perrine, R.; Wells, M. Labradors to persians: Perceptions of pets in the workplace. Anthrozoös
2006
,19, 65–78.
[CrossRef]
84.
Stern, C.; Chur-Hansen, A. Methodological considerations in designing and evaluating animal-assisted
interventions. Animals 2013,3, 127–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Chur-Hansen, A.; Stern, C.; Winefield, H. Gaps in the evidence about companion animals and human health:
Some suggestions for progress. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2010,8, 140–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86.
Borrego, J.L.-C.; Franco, L.R.; Perea Mediavilla, M.A.; Piñero, N.B.; Roldán, A.T.; Picabia, A.B.
Animal-assisted interventions: Review of current status and future challenges. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther.
2014,14, 85–101.
87.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Pet Allergies: Are You Allergic to Dogs or Cats? Available
online: http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=18&cont=236 (accessed on 24 March 2017).
88.
Custovic, A.; Green, R.; Taggart, S.C.O.; Smith, A.; Pickering, C.A.C.; Chapman, M.D.; Woodcock, A.
Domestic allergens in public places II: Dog (Can f 1) and cockroach (Bla g 2) allergens in dust and mite, cat,
dog and cockroach allergens in the air in public buildings. Clin. Exp. Allergy
1996
,26, 1246–1252. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
89.
National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, Eighth Edition; National Academies
Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
90.
Smith, D.M.; Coop, C.A. Dog allergen immunotherapy: Past, present, and future. Ann. Allergy
Asthma Immunol. 2016,116, 188–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91.
Avner, D.B.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Platts-Mills, T.A.; Woodfolk, J.A. Evaluation of different techniques for
washing cats: Quantitation of allergen removed from the cat and the effect on airborne Fel d 1. J. Allergy
Clin. Immunol. 1997,100, 307–312. [CrossRef]
92.
Hodson, T.; Custovic, A.; Simpson, A.; Chapman, M.; Woodcock, A.; Green, R. Washing the dog reduces dog
allergen levels, but the dog needs to be washed twice a week. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.
1999
,103, 581–585.
[CrossRef]
93.
Green, R.; Simpson, A.; Custovic, A.; Faragher, B.; Chapman, M.; Woodcock, A. The effect of air filtration on
airborne dog allergen. Allergy 1999,54, 484–488. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94.
Francis, H.; Fletcher, G.; Anthony, C.; Pickering, C.; Oldham, L.; Hadley, E.; Custovic, A.; Niven, R. Clinical
effects of air filters in homes of asthmatic adults sensitized and exposed to pet allergens. Clin. Exp. Allergy
2003,33, 101–105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95.
Plaut, M.; Zimmerman, E.M.; Goldstein, R.A. Health hazards to humans associated with domesticated pets.
Ann. Rev. Pub. Health 1996,17, 221–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96.
Grant, S.; Olsen, C.W. Preventing zoonotic diseases in immunocompromised persons: The role of physicians
and veterinarians. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 1999,5, 159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97.
Robertson, I.; Irwin, P.; Lymbery, A.; Thompson, R. The role of companion animals in the emergence of
parasitic zoonoses. Int. J. Parasitol. 2000,30, 1369–1377. [CrossRef]
98.
University of Texas Medical Branch. Healthcare Epidemiology Policies and Procedures: Animal Assisted
Therapy. Available online: http://www.utmb.edu/policies_and_procedures/Non-IHOP/Healthcare_
Epidemiology/01.35%20-%20Animal%20Assisted%20Therapy.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2017).
99.
Willmott, H.; Greenheld, N.; Goddard, R. Beware of the dog? An observational study of dog-related
musculoskeletal injury in the UK. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,46, 52–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100.
Stevens, J.A.; Teh, S.; Haileyesus, T. Dogs and cats as environmental fall hazards. J. Saf. Res.
2010
,41, 69–73.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Delta Society. Minimum Standards for Service Dogs; Delta Society: Sydney, Australia, 2002.
102. Garcia, V.F. Animal bites and pasturella infections. Pediatr. Rev. 1997,18, 127–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103.
Patronek, G.J.; Slavinski, S.A. Animal bites. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
2009
,234, 336–345. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104.
Overall, K.L.; Love, M. Dog bites to humans-demography, epidemiology, injury, and risk. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc. 2001,218, 1923–1934. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105.
Fredrickson-MacNamara, M.; Butler, K. The art of animal selection for animal-assisted activity and therapy
programs. In Handbook on Animal Assisted Therapy, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2010;
pp. 111–134.
106. Therapy Dogs International. Available online: http://www.tdi- dog.org (accessed on 24 March 2017).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 20 of 21
107.
Volhard, J.; Volhard, W. The Canine Good Citizen: Every Dog Can Be One, 2nd ed.; Howell Book House:
New York, NY, USA, 1997.
108. Oregon Revised Statutes. Public Health and Safety; Oregon Revised Statutes: Oregon, OR, USA, 1971.
109.
LAVOY v. ROSENTHAL, No. CV 97 0161308. Available online: https://casetext.com/case/lavoy-v-
rosenthal-no-cv-97-0161308-dec#! (accessed on 2 May 2017).
110.
Falby v. Zarembski. 1992; Vol. 1992 221 Conn. 14. Available online: http://www.leagle.com/decision/
1992235221Conn14_1233/FALBY%20v.%20ZAREMBSKI (accessed on 2 May 2017).
111.
Brewer, G. Snakes Top List of Americans’ Fears. Available online: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1891/
snakes-top-list-americans- fears.aspx (accessed on 24 March 2017).
112.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), 5th ed.;
American Psychiatric Publishing: Arlington, VA, USA, 2013.
113. McCabe, R. Phobias: The Psychology of Irrational Fear; Greenwood: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2015.
114.
Podberscek, A.L. Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming of dogs and cats in South Korea.
J. Soc. Issues 2009,65, 615–632. [CrossRef]
115.
Cleaveland, S. Epidemiology and control of rabies: The growing problem of rabies in Africa. Trans. R. Soc.
Trop. Med. Hyg. 1998,92, 131–134. [CrossRef]
116. Foltz, R.C. Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures; Oneworld Publications: London, UK, 2005.
117.
Al-Fayez, G.; Awadalla, A.; Templer, D.I.; Arikawa, H. Companion animal attitude and its family pattern in
Kuwait. Soc. Anim. 2003,11, 17–28. [CrossRef]
118.
Sacirbey, O. Islam on Dogs: Can You Be a Good Muslim and Still Have a Dog? Available online: http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/islam-on-dogs-can-you-be-_n_1885580.html (accessed on 24 March 2017).
119. British Veterinary Association. FAWC updates the five freedoms. Vet. Rec. 1992,131, 357.
120.
Feuerbacher, E.N.; Wynne, C. A history of dogs as subjects in North American experimental psychological
research. Comp. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 2011,6, 46–71. [CrossRef]
121.
Garber, J.; Barbee, R.; Bielitzki, J.; Clayton, L.; Donovan, J.; Hendrickson, C.; Kohn, D.L.; Melcher, J.;
Quimby, F. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th ed.; National Academies Press: Washington,
DC, USA, 2010.
122.
Serpell, J.A.; Coppinger, R.; Fine, A.H. Welfare considerations in therapy and assistance animals. In Handbook
on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice; Elsevier: San Diego, CA,
USA, 2010.
123.
American Kennel Club. Canine Good Citizen. Available online: http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/training/
canine-good-citizen/ (accessed on 28 March 2016).
124.
Glenn, M.K. Stakeholder perceptions of the need for research on elements of service dog partnerships in the
workplace. Rehabil. Res. Policy Educ. 2015,29, 320–335. [CrossRef]
125. Templer, D.I. The construction of a pet attitude scale. Psychol. Rec. 1981,31, 343–348.
126.
Schneider, T.R.; Lyons, J.B.; Tetrick, M.A.; Accortt, E.E. Multidimensional quality of life and human–animal
bond measures for companion dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2010,5, 287–301. [CrossRef]
127.
Cash, K.C.; Gray, G.R. A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace.
Acad. Manag. Exec. 2000,14, 124–133. [CrossRef]
128.
Morse, T.; Bracker, A.; Warren, N.; Goyzueta, J.; Cook, M. Characteristics of effective health and safety
committees: Survey results. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013,56, 163–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Total Worker Health. Available online: https:
//www.cdc.gov/niosh/twh/ (accessed on 24 March 2017).
130.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC NHWP Health and Safety Climate Survey (INPUTS).
Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/tools-resources/pdfs/nhwp_inputs_
survey.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2017).
131. Center for the Promotion and Health in the New England Workplace. Available online: https://www.uml.
edu/Research/Centers/CPH-NEW/default.aspx (accessed on 24 March 2017).
132.
Walking/Working Surfaces. Available online: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/walkingworkingsurfaces/
(accessed on 24 March 2017).
133. Job Accommodation Network. Available online: http://askjan.org (accessed on 24 March 2017).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017,14, 498 21 of 21
134.
O’Haire, M.E.; McKenzie, S.J.; McCune, S.; Slaughter, V. Effects of classroom animal-assisted activities on
social functioning in children with autism spectrum disorder. J. Altern. Complement. Med.
2014
,20, 162–168.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
135.
Travers, C.; Perkins, J.; Rand, J.; Bartlett, H.; Morton, J. An evaluation of dog-assisted therapy for residents of
aged care facilities with dementia. Anthrozoös 2013,26, 213–225. [CrossRef]
136.
Marino, L. Construct validity of animal-assisted therapy and activities: How important is the animal in
AAT? Anthrozoös 2012,25, 139–151. [CrossRef]
137.
Daniels, J. Pooch Perk: More Companies Embracing Pet-Friendly Office Policy. Available
online: http://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/pooch-perk-more-companies-embracing-pet- friendly-
office-policy-n445931 (accessed on 24 March 2017).
138.
Milgate, N.; Innes, E.; O’Loughlin, K. Examining the effectiveness of health and safety committees and
representatives: A review. Work 2002,19, 281–290. [PubMed]
139.
Newbury, S.; Blinn, M.K.; Bushby, P.A.; Cox, C.B.; Dinnage, J.D.; Griffin, B.; Hurley, K.F.; Isaza, N.; Jones, W.;
Miller, L. Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters; Association of Shelter Veterinarians: Corning, NY,
USA, 2010.
140.
Michigan State University. Animal Legal & Historical Center. Available online: http://animallaw.info
(accessed on 24 March 2017).
©
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... These initiatives are increasingly viewed as strategies to improve employee productivity, well-being, and retention [4,5]. Additional benefits include lower absenteeism rates [6], higher morale [7], increased productivity [8], stronger organizational commitment [9], and an improved perceived workplace climate [10][11][12][13]. ...
... Employees who bring their pets to work or work from home will likely work late to finish tasks since they do not need to rush home to care for their pets [17]. Other benefits include lower absenteeism rates, higher productivity, and improved employee relations [11,42]. Pet-friendly practices meet the needs of employees and their customers and deliver significant advantages to organizations [30]. ...
... Studies have shown that stress is higher in those who do not own a pet [36]. Concerning productivity, allowing pets to be at work (such as in the case of remote work or workplace facilities) can also increase productivity, as employees may miss fewer sick days, adding the fact that they are accompanied by their furry friend [24], performing better without the stress of worrying about them at home [11,48]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aims The representation of companion animals, or pets, has been changing recently. Research concerning how pets influence employees’ work-related well-being has also started to take its first steps. This research aimed to analyze (1) how managers perceive pet-friendly practices and their main effects at work, and (2) the impact of such practices on employees’ well-being and work engagement. Relying on the social exchange perspective and the self-determination theory it was hypothesized that pet-friendly practices would positively influence employees’ well-being and work engagement by satisfying their three basic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Methodology Two studies with mixed methods were conducted. The first and exploratory study resorted to semi-structured interviews with six managers. The second was a two-wave study conducted with a large sample of workers (N = 379). Results The first study highlighted the primary advantages and disadvantages of pet-friendly practices, along with the various obstacles and limitations, and proposed managerial strategies to overcome them. Managers generally expressed interest and enthusiasm about the topic but also pointed out challenges in implementing a pet-friendly strategy due to the limited number of empirical studies demonstrating its benefits. The second study’s findings indicated that pet-friendly practices positively impacted employees' work engagement and well-being by fulfilling their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Originality Overall, Portugal is seen as having a conservative culture, which slows the dissemination and implementation of these measures. To overcome these challenges, several managerial recommendations have been proposed. Raising awareness and fostering discussion on the topic are crucial steps toward integrating pet-friendly policies into human resources management.
... Working dogs as one prominent example have come to play integral roles in the workplace. While their utilities are diverse, the general versatility of dogs alongside their popularity as domesticated pets (i.e., human-dog companionship) has contributed to their widespread adoption across many workplace settings (Foreman et al., 2017;Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017). When used in certain situations (e.g., health and wellbeing), scholarly literature has found that working dogs may provide many benefits (Bray et al., 2021;Foreman et al., 2017;Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017). ...
... While their utilities are diverse, the general versatility of dogs alongside their popularity as domesticated pets (i.e., human-dog companionship) has contributed to their widespread adoption across many workplace settings (Foreman et al., 2017;Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017). When used in certain situations (e.g., health and wellbeing), scholarly literature has found that working dogs may provide many benefits (Bray et al., 2021;Foreman et al., 2017;Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017). ...
... Although existing scholarly literature has examined working dogs in health and wellbeing (e.g., Flynn et al., 2020;Foreman et al., 2017;Gussgard et al., 2019;Schoenfeld-Tacher et al., 2017;Sykes et al., 2020;Yeomans et al., 2019) as well as policing contexts independently (e.g., Adams et al., 2023;Barberi et al., 2019;Brady et al., 2018;Hickey & Hoffman, 2003;Jezierski et al., 2014;Malowski & Steiger, 2020;Meade, 2006;Mesloh, 2006;Sanders, 2006;Sandrin et al., 2023;Slabbert & Odendaal, 1999;Walby et al., 2018;Wolf et al., 2010), many questions remain regarding public perceptions of dogs in these different environments (e.g., see Cobb et al., 2023). In order to contribute to this literature, the present research employs a mixed-method approach to examine public perceptions of working dogs' utilities, with an emphasis on police dogs. ...
Article
Working dogs play integral roles across many human workplaces. This is no exception in the criminal justice system, and policing more specifically, where police dogs are used in various capacities. Many questions remain, however, regarding the public’s perceptions of dogs in different working contexts. Drawing upon data from a sample of Canadian and American adults (n = 201) obtained via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, the present research explores public perceptions of working dogs’ utilities, with an emphasis on police dogs. The findings reveal that while participants overwhelmingly supported working dogs in health and wellbeing contexts, they expressed more mixed perceptions regarding police dogs. The findings also reveal that police dogs’ utilities are related to participants’ overall support for police dogs, but that the specific relationship varies as a function of the utility. Amidst growing concerns regarding the use of police dogs, these findings may help police organizations incorporate evidence-based decision-making related to the deployment of police dogs moving forward.
... Young people, especially those newly entering the labor market, often evaluate potential employers based on the benefits offered to reflect their needs and expectations [110]. Although many authors [66,[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121] have investigated the attractiveness of employee benefits, their focus has never been on Generation Z and the agricultural sector. In the context of workforce development, the importance of employee benefits is particularly pronounced for Generation Z, as this generation emphasizes the quality of benefits offered by potential employers and considers them a critical factor in evaluating the fit of an organization [110,122]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article addresses the pressing issue of attracting Generation Z to the agriculture sector in the Czech Republic, a vital issue given its crucial role in ensuring food security and sustainability. During demographic changes and declining interest from younger generations to work in agriculture, it is essential to understand and meet the specific needs of this generation. This article examines the alignment between advertised employee benefits and the preferences of Generation Z, offers a new employee benefits categorization, and highlights possible interventions to increase the attractiveness of the agricultural sector in the labor market. Based on a literature review, quantitative content analysis of job advertisements, and a questionnaire survey, the research aims to evaluate the current offers of employee benefits in the agricultural sector in the Czech Republic in terms of their attractiveness and how they are perceived by Generation Z before then categorizing these employee benefits. The results show that benefits from the “Holiday and times off” category have the highest value for Generation Z and that, on the contrary, they value benefits from the “Benefits for work–life balance” category the least. A total of seven categories of employee benefits have been newly identified.
... Here, 83.4% presented adequate rabies protection, whereas a study conducted in rabies-vaccinated police dogs in China reported that 67.91% were protected, and another study on military dogs in Korea reported that more than 90% were protected [38]. These findings indicate a very low risk of transmission to human and animal populations in contact with these working animals in different national or international scenarios [39]. Nevertheless, as they are constantly exposed to different environments, are in contact with other working canine units [40] or even wild animals and are trained to bite in certain scenarios related to their profession [41], they become more vulnerable to becoming infected and transmitting infections. ...
Article
Full-text available
Rabies, a viral disease spread by infected animal bites that causes encephalitis in humans and other mammals, is a neglected infectious disease present on all continents except Antarctica. Spain has been free of terrestrial rabies since 1978. However, due to its geographical situation, it represents a bridge for imported cases from an endemic continent such as Africa to Europe. Rabies vaccination in dogs is an essential preventive tool against this zoonosis. The aim of this study was to determine the state of the immune response against rabies virus in dogs in Spain and to demonstrate whether several factors that have been previously related to the influence of the seroprevalence of this species are involved here. The seroconversion level of this zoonotic virus was assessed in a total of 1060 animals. Indirect ELISA was used to obtain data for statistical analysis to evaluate the studied variables. Working under the concept of One Health, this study provides relevant information to be taken into consideration not only to prevent re-emergence in countries free of this disease but also for prevention and control in endemic countries.
... This approach facilitates the adaptation of management strategies to tackle emerging and recurring diseases, improving both human and animal health outcomes, controlling diseases effectively, and reducing morbidity and mortality rates (Suckow et al., 2023). Various forms of surveillance can be employed for the control of zoonoses (Foreman et al. 2017) • Microbial inspection is used to identify and differentiate various microbes (Benskin et al. 2009). • Pre-symptomatic investigation aims to detect the presence of microbes in the blood plasma of both humans and animals by observing the immune response (Shurtleff 2015). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Healthcare workers are vital for public health, but they can get sick and unintentionally spread infections among patients. Microorganisms can enter healthcare settings through items like laptops, lab coats, money, keys, drinks, phone accessories, and medical tools. Healthcare workers can unknowingly pass infections between patients by using various objects and accessories. For example, female healthcare workers are advised to clean their handbags daily and avoid fabric purses. White coats can also spread contamination, so there are suggestions to limit their use in non-clinical areas. Zoonotic diseases, which transfer from animals to humans, are a growing concern. Diseases like Anthrax, Rabies, Tuberculosis, Salmonellosis, Campylobacteriosis, and Leptospirosis pose health risks. Preventing zoonotic diseases involves vaccination programs, such as immunizing dogs against Rabies. Vaccinating animals is crucial to protect public health and prevent the spread of these diseases. To address the risks of zoonotic diseases, collaboration between public health veterinarians and other stakeholders is necessary for effective prevention and management.
Article
Supporting the resilience and well-being of frontline nursing staff and medical professionals is critically important. This quality improvement project aimed to assess the impact of facility dog visits on the well-being of frontline nursing staff and medical professionals, both individually and at the unit level. Over three months, facility dogs, their handlers, and members of the staff resilience team visited outpatient and inpatient nursing areas, engaging staff in brief interactions. Surveys were administered to participants before visit (pre-visit), immediately after visits, and post-visit. These surveys assessed demographic information, individual mood, and perceived unit mood. Response to the visits was captured through immediate and post-visit surveys, while burnout was evaluated in pre- and post-visit surveys. Open-ended comments were also elicited from respondents. Overall, 87 unit visits were conducted, involving over 500 hematology or oncology frontline healthcare professionals, and 792 surveys were completed across three timepoints. Most respondents identified as inpatient nurses. Immediately following facility dog visits, more than 90% of respondents reported improved individual and unit mood, and over 70% reported sustained improvements in unit mood in the post-visit survey. Respondents’ comments reinforced the benefits of facility dog visits for staff wellness and resilience. Facility dog visits promote the well-being of pediatric hematology/oncology nurses, both individually and at the unit level, and should be scheduled regularly and frequently. This project highlights the importance of supporting the well-being of healthcare professionals and is relevant for individual healthcare professionals, the institutions they serve, and the patients under their care.
Conference Paper
Nowadays organizations struggle with staff shortages, so the concept of internal marketing or its modern variant, employer branding (EB), is taking on importance in organizations. The concept is based on the effort to attract, engage and retain employees by satisfying their needs. On the other hand, many people (i.e. potential employees) own a pet and their bond is usually very strong. Accordingly, a new practice has emerged among employers, which allows or even encourages employees to bring dogs into the workplace. In the current research, a multiple case study analysis was performed to determine if organizations nurture this practice only to attract employees (EB activity) or if a positive attitude to pets is part of their identity. Moreover, the conducted research pointed out the specificities of this practice, the benefits derived from it and the challenges of having dogs at the workplace.
Article
Full-text available
Children suffering from insecure attachment due to severe abuse and/or neglect are often characterized by internal working models which, although perhaps adaptive within the original family situation, are inappropriate and maladaptive in other relationships and situations. Such children have a higher probability than the general population of becoming abusing or neglecting parents. Besides the usual goals of psychotherapy, an overall goal is to stop the cycle of abuse in which abused children may grow up to be abusing parents. Therapy with these children is complicated by their distrust in adults as well as difficulties in symbolization due to trauma during the preverbal stage. Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) provides avenues for circumventing these difficulties, as well as providing additional tools for reaching the inner world of the client. This article gives a brief background of the connection between insecure attachment and intergenerational transmission of abuse and neglect as well as a brief overview of the principles of AAT in a play therapy setting. A rationale for the use of AAT as a unique therapy technique for children having suffered from abuse and neglect is followed by a number of clinical examples illustrating AAT.
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter demonstrates how the use of therapy and assistance animals significantly enhances human health and well-being. It addresses whether this end morally justifies the means of achieving it. The goal is to re-examine the animal/human partnership from the animal's viewpoint to see what the benefits might be for the animal, or to see if the raising, training, and use of therapy and assistance animals is causing significant degradation in their welfare. Further welfare challenges arise when therapy and assistance animals begin to age. There are many potential sources of chronic stress in the lives of therapy and assistance animals. Trainers, practitioners, and end-users of these animals should be educated to recognize the warning signs and act accordingly. Recent advances in avian medicine, nutrition, and behavior reveal that most of these birds have highly specialized needs relating to air quality, nutrition, lighting, housing, sleep, and both environmental and social enrichment. The lifecycle of the typical assistance animal generally involves a series of relatively abrupt changes in its social and physical environment. Assistance animals are expected to obey complex commands and perform relatively challenging physical activities that also create a potential for welfare problems.
Article
Objective To review the published medical literature on dog allergy immunotherapy and discuss prior clinical trials, important allergens, extract specifics, and potential future treatment options for dog allergy relevant to the clinical allergist. Data Sources MEDLINE search was performed using the terms dog, immunotherapy, and allergy limited to human studies from any period. Articles cited in selected studies also were reviewed for appropriateness of inclusion into this review. Study Selections Publications were included that were original research and fit the topic of dog allergen immunotherapy, specifically articles that investigated prior effectiveness and safety of dog allergen immunotherapy, dog extracts, identification of dog allergens, and current prescribing trends among allergists. Results Two hundred fifteen articles were initially identified and 60 were reviewed in complete detail for inclusion in this review. The primary focus was placed on the 17 clinical trials that investigated the safety and efficacy of dog immunotherapy and the 19 studies that explored and defined the complex allergenic profile of dog extracts. Conclusion The medical literature on the use of dog extract immunotherapy in patients with hypersensitivity to dog shows poor and conflicting results of clinical efficacy, which has been attributed to poor-quality extracts and the inherent complex allergenic profile of dogs that remains without a clearly dominant allergen.
Article
This chapter discusses the multitude of therapeutic options on how animals can be incorporated effectively. It provides an overview of the applications of animal-assisted interventions (AAI) in various disciplines and highlights numerous ways in which AAI can be integrated and applied. It builds on this information and provides useful techniques and strategies for AAI with children and adults. AAI is now becoming more recognized as a potential alternative in numerous health care disciplines. Professionals in various mental health disciplines, speech and language therapists, psychotherapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and nurses are but a few of the disciplines incorporating animals as part of their therapeutic regime. Disciplines such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, nursing, mental health, and education are some of the disciplines where animals are now being used as an aspect of treatment. As AAI continues gaining professional acceptance, more extensive research is needed to document its efficacy.
Article
Purpose: To examine the perceived need for research on elements of successful service dog partnerships in the workplace outlined by stakeholders in an exploratory study. Method: A structured mixed methods approach was used to gather ideas from people with service dogs, trainers, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other health care professionals. Sixty-eight people participated in the process, from brainstorming elements (n = 24), sorting them into clusters (n = 10), rating the items for importance (n = 40), and need for research (n = 34). Among those rating research, most were service dog handlers (55%). Primarily, the group had experience with mobility/stability dogs (45%) or medical alert/response service dogs (35%). Results: Sixty-eight elements were brainstormed and rated according to need for research. The clusters Monitoring and Dog Preparation received the highest mean ratings in response to the question, What is your perception of the relative priority of conducting research on this item? All 68 elements were perceived to be in need of further research. Conclusion: The conclusion was that the elements established in this study should generate scholarly activity in the rehabilitation and disability research and service community with the intent of identifying promising practices related to the use of service dogs in the workplace by people with disabilities.
Article
An 18-item Likert-format Pet Attitude Scale was developed. It was found to have a Chronbach’s Alpha of.93 and test-retest reliability of .92. Correlations with the Mini-Mult, Eysenck Personality Inventory, Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the Personality Research Form were determined. Varimax rotation yielded three factors, labeled love and interaction, pets in home, and joy of pet ownership. Kennel workers had significantly higher scores than social work students, an indication of criterion-oriented validity as well as face validity.