RESUMO
Similar to many zoonotic pathogens which transmit from animals to humans, SARS-CoV-2 (CoV-2), the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, most likely originated in Rhinolophus bats before spreading among humans globally. Early into the pandemic, reports of CoV-2 diagnoses in animals from various countries emerged. While most CoV-2 positive animals were confirmed to have been in close contact with CoV-2 positive humans, there has been a paucity of published evidence to-date describing risk factors associated with CoV-2 transmission among humans and animals. The COVID-19 Human-Animal Interactions Survey (CHAIS) was developed to provide a standardized instrument describing human-animal interactions during the pandemic and to evaluate behavioral, spatiotemporal, and biological risk factors associated with bi-directional zoonotic transmission of CoV-2 within shared environments, predominantly households with limited information about human-wildlife or human-livestock interactions. CHAIS measures four broad domains of transmission risk: 1) risk and intensity of infection in human hosts, 2) spatial characteristics of shared environments, 3) behaviors and human-animal interactions, and 4) susceptible animal subpopulations. Following the development of CHAIS, with a One Health approach, a multidisciplinary group of experts (n = 20) was invited to review and provide feedback on the survey for content validity. Expert feedback was incorporated into two final survey formats-an extended version and an abridged version for which specific core questions addressing zoonotic and reverse zoonotic transmission were identified. Both versions are modularized, with each section having the capacity to serve as independent instruments, allowing researchers to customize the survey based on context and research-specific needs. Further adaptations for studies seeking to investigate other zoonotic pathogens with similar routes of transmission (i.e. respiratory, direct contact) are also possible. The CHAIS instrument is a standardized human-animal interaction survey developed to provide important data on risk factors that guide transmission of CoV-2, and other similar pathogens, among humans and animals.
RESUMO
To date, investigations of the welfare of therapy dogs have focused largely on examining physiological and behavioral measures that could indicate if the animal is experiencing stress or distress. However, this approach does not fully address the definition of welfare which is often described as existing on a continuum from negative (or stressful) to positive. With therapy dogs, it would be worth addressing if they experience positive emotional affect while working since the quality and efficacy of animal-assisted interventions for the human recipient is likely to be influenced by the animal's emotional state during the interaction. The purpose of this review is to articulate how objective measurements of the HPA axis and measurements of behavioral observations and standardized questions can be used to evaluate positive welfare in therapy dogs. A potentially relevant indicator of positive welfare is the peripheral concentration of the neurohormone oxytocin, which has been found to increase in systemic circulation within a variety of species during positive social and affiliative contexts, including during human-dog interaction. Oxytocin is also a negative-feedback regulator of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis, which culminates with the production of the stress hormone cortisol. Cortisol is widely used as a physiological indicator to assess negative welfare states in animals, including therapy dogs. Observable behavior during interactions with humans that may convey enjoyment could provide indicators of positive welfare in dogs such as engagement in play, or human-directed affiliative behaviors including leaning against, nudging, or licking the patient. However, in assessing positive welfare, it is also critical to consider that all animal behavioral displays and physiological responses are dependent on the dog's individual (and breed) temperament. Temperament directly drives how the animal copes and responds to its current physical and social environment, including during stressful situations such as when therapy dogs interact with unfamiliar humans in novel healthcare settings. Coupled with both positive and negative physiological and behavioral welfare indicators, questionnaire data can provide further context to, and enhance interpretations of, therapy dog welfare assessment results. Overall, to date, no studies have measured all of these factors to assess therapy dog welfare.
RESUMO
The benefits of animal-assisted interventions (AAI), to utilize companion animals as an adjunctive treatment modality, is well-established and a burgeoning research field. However, few studies have evaluated the potential hazards of these programs, such as the potential for therapy animals to transfer hospital-associated pathogens between individuals and the hospital environment. Here we review the current literature on the possible risks of hospital-based AAI programs, including zoonotic pathogen transmission. We identified twenty-nine articles encompassing reviews of infection control guidelines and epidemiological studies on zoonotic pathogen prevalence in AAI. We observed substantial heterogeneity in infection control practices among hospital AAI programs. Few data confirmed pathogen transmission between therapy animals and patients. Given AAI's known benefits, we recommend that future research utilize a One Health framework to evaluate microbial dynamics among therapy animals, patients, and hospital environments. This framework may best promote safe practices to ensure the sustainability of these valuable AAI programs.
