Family Dog-Assisted Adapted Physical Activity: A Case Study

FAQ: Family Dog-Assisted Adapted Physical Activity for Children with Cerebral Palsy

What was the main purpose of the "Family Dog-Assisted Adapted Physical Activity" case study?

The primary purpose of this case study was to investigate how an adapted physical activity, animal-assisted intervention (APA-AAI), specifically involving a family dog, could affect the motor skills, physical activity levels, and overall quality of life for a child diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP). Additionally, the study aimed to assess the impact of these activities on the bond between the child and their dog. The research aimed to fill a gap in existing literature, as prior studies had not extensively examined the use of family dogs in such interventions for children with CP.

What kind of physical activity limitations do children with cerebral palsy typically face?

Children with cerebral palsy (CP) commonly experience significant limitations in physical activity compared to their peers without the condition. They often exhibit delays in motor skill development, coordination, and balance. This can lead to them being physically weaker, less fit, and having lower cardiovascular endurance, increasing their risk for secondary health conditions associated with physical inactivity, such as chronic pain, fatigue, and osteoporosis. Traditional therapies have not consistently shown long-term adherence or increased activity, highlighting the need for novel PA promotion programs.

How was the intervention structured, and what activities were involved?

The intervention followed an A-B-A single-subject design, including a baseline assessment (A), an 8-week intervention phase (B), and a post-intervention assessment (A). The intervention itself had two main components:

• Part 1 (Weekly Lab Sessions): The participant engaged in 60-minute sessions once a week for 8 weeks at a veterinary clinic. These sessions involved adapted physical activities performed with the family dog, tailored to the participant's needs. Activities included sit-stands, brushing the dog, walking over low poles (caveletti's), standing on a wobble board, marching on a balance disc, and playing fetch.
• Part 2 (Daily At-Home Activities): The participant was assigned daily activities to complete with the family dog six days a week at home. These activities were similar to the lab sessions but excluded caveletti's and balance board/disc exercises. Instead, the participant was asked to log the duration of walks with their dog and/or family.

What were the key findings regarding the child's physical health and quality of life?

The case study observed several positive outcomes for the child:

• Motor Skills: While locomotor scores showed a slight decrease, object control skills (such as throwing, catching, and kicking) significantly increased by 21% from baseline to post-intervention.
• Physical Activity: There was a notable decrease in sedentary behavior by 38% and a substantial increase in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) by 300%.
• Quality of Life: The child's self-reported quality of life improved across several domains, including social (17%), function (13%), physical health (19%), and emotional well-being (5%). The parent's proxy report showed even more significant increases, especially in the physical health (179%) and emotional (103%) domains, alongside a 98% decrease in the pain domain.

How did the family dog's behavior and the human-animal bond change during the intervention?

Significant improvements were observed in the child-dog relationship:

• Attachment Style: The dog's attachment style towards the child transformed from an insecure-avoidant pattern (where the dog did not seek proximity or use the child as a secure base) to a secure attachment style. This was characterized by increased contact-seeking and exploratory behavior upon the child's return after an absence.
• Sociability: In the active phase of the sociability test, the time the dog spent within 1 meter of the child (proximity seeking) increased from 12% to 62%, and time spent in physical contact increased from 0% to 25%.
• Gesture Responsiveness: The dog's responsiveness to the child's non-verbal cues (pointing) improved dramatically. Prior to the intervention, the dog failed to make any choices in the pointing task; post-intervention, it followed the child's point to the correct container 6 out of 10 times and actively participated in all 10 trials.

What are the potential advantages of using a family dog in animal-assisted interventions compared to trained therapy dogs?

Utilizing a family dog in APA-AAIs offers several unique advantages:

• Continuous Support: The family dog can play a more full-time role, providing ongoing support, motivation, and companionship within and beyond the child's home.
• Increased Adherence: The continuous presence of the family dog at home is expected to promote higher adherence to daily physical activity, as the dog can act as a consistent prompt for healthy behaviors like walking.
• Reduced Barriers: It may facilitate broader access to and success of AAI programs by eliminating time and location restrictions associated with scheduled therapy dog sessions.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Using an already owned pet avoids the significant financial barriers associated with acquiring a specially bred and trained service dog.
• Familiarity and Safety: Working with a known animal can be less intimidating and potentially safer for both the child and the animal, as both are familiar with each other's body language and past interactions.
• Leveraging Existing Bonds: Existing strong human-animal bonds can be leveraged, potentially magnifying the health benefits observed with dog ownership.

What breeds, ages, or training histories are considered suitable for family dogs in such interventions based on this study?

This case study suggests that a much wider range of dogs than typically used in traditional AAI visits might be suitable. The study successfully utilized a one-year-old male Pomeranian that had no prior formal training history and had been living indoors as a pet since 8 weeks of age. This indicates that dogs from a broader range of breeds, ages (even younger dogs), and without extensive prior training may still facilitate positive therapeutic outcomes. However, the authors acknowledge that some pet dogs might not be sufficiently motivated or healthy, warranting further research into factors like breed, size, and temperament.

What are the limitations of this study, and what future research is recommended?

The main limitation of this study is its small sample size, as it reports on a single case. This significantly limits the ability to generalize the findings to a broader population of children with CP or other disabilities. The participant self-selected, meaning parental attitudes towards dog inclusion might have influenced outcomes.

Future research is recommended to:

• Replicate the intervention: Conduct larger, more diverse studies with controlled experimental designs to confirm these preliminary positive findings.
• Include attitudinal measures: Incorporate measures of children's attitudes towards and perceptions of their interaction with their dogs in future studies.
• Investigate dog characteristics: Examine how factors like breed, size, and temperament of the family dog might influence adherence and outcomes.
• Identify optimal activities: Research the types of activities that are most interesting and effective for participants and their family dogs.
• Compare intervention models: Further explore the benefits of family dog-based interventions compared to traditional AAI approaches involving independent handlers or specially trained service animals, considering long-term adherence and cost-effectiveness.