↓ Skip to main content

A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A survey of the impact of owning a service dog on quality of life for individuals with physical and hearing disability: a pilot study
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0640-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie S. Hall, Jessica MacMichael, Amy Turner, Daniel S. Mills

Abstract

Quality of life refers to a person's experienced standard of health, comfort and happiness and is typically measured using subjective self-report scales. Despite increasing scientific interest in the value of dogs to human health and the growing demand for trained service dogs, to date no research has reported how service dogs may affect client perceptions of quality of life. We compared quality of life scores on the 16 item Flanagan quality of life scale from individuals who owned a trained service dog with those who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one (waiting list control). Data were analysed separately from two groups; those with a service dog trained for individuals with physical disabilities (with physical service dog: n = 72; waiting for a service dog: n = 24; recruited from Dogs for Good database) and those with a hearing service dog (with hearing service dog = 111; waiting for a service dog = 30; recruited from Hearing Dogs for Deaf People database). When controlling for age and gender individuals scored higher on total quality of life scores if they owned a service dog or a hearing service dog, but this was only statistically significant for those with a service dog. Both groups (physical service dog and hearing service dog) scored significantly higher on items relating to health, working, learning and independence if they owned a service dog, in comparison to those on the waiting list. Those with a physical service dog also scored significantly higher on items relating to recreational activities (including items relating to reading/listening to music, socialising, creative expression), and those involving social interactions (including items relating to participating in organisations, socialising, relationship with relatives). Additionally, those with a physical service dog scored higher on understanding yourself and material comforts than those on the waiting list control. In contrast, those with a hearing service dog appeared to receive fewer benefits on items relating to social activities. Owning a service dog can bring significant specific and potentially general benefits to the quality of life of individuals with physical disabilities and hearing impairments. These benefits may have considerable implications for individuals with disabilities, society and the economy by promoting independence, learning and working abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 50 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 5%
Other 39 24%
Unknown 56 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,302,305
of 23,033,713 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#856
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,624
of 308,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#17
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,033,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.