Defining Terms Used for Animals Working in Support Roles for People with Support Needs

Many philosophers have argued that prosthetic limbs are the subjects of some of the same rights as traditional body parts. This is a strong argument in favour of respecting the...

This paper probes the distinction between the so-called emotional support animals (ESAs), a term that is specific to the USA and that has recently been the subject of significant media...

The role of Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) in facilitating mental health recovery is gaining increasing attention internationally. Within the United States, ESAs are companion animals without any special training, who are denoted in writing by a licensed mental health professional to be a therapeutic necessity for someone living with chronic mental health symptoms and who has a condition that meets the legal definition of a disability. ESAs are recognized within federal disability legislation, with limited rights to those who have ESAs as accommodations for their disabilities. The aim of this article is to present ESAs as a valid psychosocial rehabilitation intervention, consistent with the tenets of mental health recovery. Empirical literature is discussed, and a theoretical foundation is applied to explain the mechanism within the theory of change for how and why ESAs benefit people living with chronic mental health issues. To advance the current literature and practice, emergent best practices and guidelines for mental health clinicians for designating and documenting ESA need for clients who request such are provided.

Colleges and universities are receiving increased requests for emotional support animals (ESA), and little research has been done addressing how these administrators navigate and negotiate these requests. In this study, I conducted in-depth face-to-face and phone interviews with six administrators who are responsible for handling ESA requests from students on their respective campuses. This study investigates their legal knowledge, their sense of their obligations, and their understanding of the benefits, consequences, and potential concerns of using ESAs on university campuses. Emotional support animal requests challenge administrators for a variety of reasons. First, administrators are being tasked with creating and enforcing policies without any formal training on ESAs. Second, administrators are concerned that students might abuse the system and request ESAs without a serious need, or that students will submit fraudulent documentation. Third, administrators desire to be responsive to any student request that enhances students’ academic success and are sympathetic of the burdensome process students face when collecting and submitting documentation for ESAs, but are concerned about the ramifications and legal liabilities the university faces as a result of these requests. The findings of this research will be beneficial to administrators who are dealing with ESA requests, residential life staff members who house students with ESAs, administrators in enrollment management who recruit students on their campuses, student support administrators who manage retention on campus, and the students who are making the requests for ESAs.

An Emotional Support Animal (ESA) is an animal that provides therapeutic benefit (e.g., emotional support, comfort, companionship) to a person with a mental health or psychiatric disability (such as a serious mental health condition). An ESA is not considered a Service Animal, but under U.S. law, an emotional support animal is also not considered a pet and is generally not restricted by the type of animal. Any domesticated animal may be considered as an ESA (e.g., cats, dogs, mice, rabbits, birds, hedgehogs, rats, minipigs, ferrets, etc.) and they can be any age. However, an ESA must be able to be manageable in public and does not create a nuisance. In this tip sheet we describe what an Emotional Support Animal is an is not as well as how someone can look into getting one.

Inclusion of Emotional Support Animals as Service Animals Under the ADA: Creating the Right to Use Dogs to Assist People Living with Mental Health Issues

This work aimed to assess the therapeutic and economic benefits of service dogs versus emotional support dogs for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans with PTSD (N=227) participating in a multicenter trial were randomly assigned to receive a service or emotional support dog; 181 veterans received a dog and were followed up for 18 months. Primary outcomes included overall functioning (assessed with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale II [WHODAS 2.0]) and quality of life (Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey [VR-12]). Secondary outcomes included PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5), suicidal ideation, depression, sleep quality, health care costs and utilization, medication adherence, employment, and productivity. Participants paired with a dog had a mean±SD age of 50.6±13.6 years (range 22-79), and most were male (80%), White (66%), and non-Hispanic (91%). Adjusted linear mixed repeated-measures models indicated no difference between the two groups on WHODAS 2.0 or VR-12 scores. Participants with service dogs had a 3.7-point greater reduction in PTSD symptoms versus participants with emotional support dogs (p=0.036). No reduced health care utilization or cost was associated with receiving a service dog. Veterans with service dogs had an increase of 10 percentage points in antidepressant adherence compared with those with emotional support dogs (p<0.01). Both groups appeared to benefit from having a service or emotional support dog. No significant differences in improved functioning or quality of life were observed between the groups. Those in the service dog group had a greater reduction in PTSD symptoms and better antidepressant adherence, improvements that should be explored further.

This chapter reviews key research on the similarities and differences in leadership and management across different regions of the world. It also looks at similarities and differences on other relevant aspects, that is, commitment, work values, personality and emotional intelligence. Research has tended to focus on drawing out the differences as that appears to be worthy of news and attracts interest. We also report on the types of errors in research which might actually make real differences appear much larger. The reality is that what we find is a great deal of similarity in leadership and management behaviour across the different regions of the world. Given these similarities, can we develop a management level Situational Judgment Test (SJT) that can be used effectively across different world regions? We believe this can be achieved by identifying SJT items that work consistently across world regions and then assembling a bias-free test with robust psychometric properties.

Media reports of people attempting to bring their emotional support animals, ranging from peacocks to pigs, along with them on airline flights have become more commonplace than ever. The range and types of these animals have varied greatly, leaving many people to wonder about the legitimacy of their characterization as true and necessary emotional support animals and/or their potential qualification as service animals. This has resulted in perceptions that some individuals are abusing the policies and regulations that govern access and reasonable accommodation. Those perceptions, coupled with an increased use of these types of animals, have brought a renewed focus on the access rights of animals to all types of public facilities, including athletics venues.

Campus housing accommodation requests for an emotional support animal continue to rise. Schools may assume the Fair Housing Act is the only federal law that governs requests to keep an ESA in residential housing. Their assumption may seem reasonable since the Americans with Disabilities Act service animal regulations do not extend to students with ESAs, and courts routinely treat claims under Section 504 and the ADA as governed by the same legal obligations. In addition, the three major campus housing emotional support animal cases, all ending in court‐approved consent decrees, were FHA lawsuits against Portland State University, the University of Nebraska at Kearney, and Kent State University, with the Department of Justice suing on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

As service dogs, emotional support dogs, and therapy dogs have become more prevalent in the USA, so too has the controversy surrounding their legitimacy. Yet, there is a lack of objective data regarding the public’s understanding of the role played by each of these types of animals, as well as their perceptions regarding the legitimacy of their integration. An anonymous, online survey was distributed to examine the perceptions of US adults who do not own any type of assistance animal. A total of 505 individuals responded to the online survey, yielding 284 usable responses. Results suggest widespread misconceptions about definitions, rules, regulations, and rights associated with each type of assistance dog. In general, service dogs are more likely to be perceived as helping with a legitimate need, and their access to public spaces is viewed favorably. While there are some concerns about the legitimacy and necessary access rights for emotional support dogs, members of the public correctly identified the roles and rights of therapy dogs. Despite the media’s focus on abuses and false representation of these dogs, most participants reported feeling the majority of people are not taking advantage of the system.

Clinical characteristics of functional (psychogenic nonepileptic) seizures: An international retrospective study

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government & LegalFull AccessWhat to Do If Patients Want Service or Emotional Support AnimalsAnne Huben-Kearney, R.N., B.S.N., M.P.A.Anne Huben-KearneySearch for more papers by this author, R.N., B.S.N., M.P.A.Published Online:28 Sep 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.10a24AbstractHere are some tips and information on how to handle patient requests for a support animal or emotional support animal.A patient asks the psychiatrist for a letter advocating for a service animal or for an emotional support animal. What is the difference between them? What is the psychiatrist’s responsibility when receiving such a request?Service DogsUnder the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a service animal is defined as a dog (or miniature horse) that has been individually trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability. The task(s) performed by the dog or horse must be directly related to the person’s disability. The disability may be physical, sensory, psychiatric, or intellectual. Psychiatric service dogs (PSDs) require extensive training to work specifically with people whose disability is due to mental illness. PSDs might be trained to remind patients to take their psychiatric medications, turn on lights for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or interrupt self-mutilation by patients with dissociative disorder. Under the ADA, service animals can go anywhere the public can go.Emotional Support AnimalsEmotional support animals (ESAs) provide support through companionship. ESAs (generally dogs) have no special training and are not given the same accommodations as service animals. Regulations regarding ESAs are primarily set by individual states, but under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Air Carrier Access Act, individuals who meet the proper criteria are entitled to an emotional support dog to assist them with their daily life.Generally, a regular pet can be an ESA if a mental health professional writes a letter saying that the owner has a mental health condition and needs the animal’s help for their health or treatment.Disorders that qualify for a PSD or ESA must be specified in DSM-5. Examples of disorders that could qualify a person for a service dog or emotional support animal include the following:ADHDAnxiety disordersDepressionPTSDBipolar disorder/mood disorderSchizophreniaRisk Management Tips for LettersFor a PSDDetermine that the patient is psychiatrically disabled to the degree that the person is unable to perform at least one major life task without assistance of a PSD on a daily basis.For an ESADetermine whether an ESA can indeed provide emotional support, but also understand how the animal assists with support.Consider meeting and observing the ESA, especially prior to patients’ airplane travel if they do not have their ESA with them. However, patients’ not bringing their ESA to sessions may be a flag that an ESA is not necessary.Resist classifying different species of animals, such as peacocks, iguanas, pigs, and other unusual animals as an ESA for air travel.State that you are not vouching for the ESA’s behavior, but only how the ESA helps your patient.For either a PSD or ESAState that your patient has a DSM-5 diagnosis for which the PSD or ESA is a necessary accommodation but do not give your patient’s specific diagnosis. ■ResourcesU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADAADA National Network, Service Animals and Emotional Support AnimalsADA National Network, Service AnimalsThis information is provided as a risk management resource for Allied World policyholders and should not be construed as legal or clinical advice. This material may not be reproduced or distributed without the express, written permission of Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd, a Fairfax company (“Allied World”). Risk management services are provided by or arranged through AWAC Services Company, a member company of Allied World. © 2020 Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, Ltd. All Rights ReservedAnne Huben-Kearney, R.N., B.S.N., M.P.A., is a risk management consultant in the Risk Management Group of AWAC Services Company, a member company of Allied World. Risk Management services are provided as an exclusive benefit to insureds of the APA-endorsed American Professional Agency Inc. liability insurance program. ISSUES NewArchived

IntroductionWomen in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experience disproportionately high rates of HIV infection and unintended pregnancy compared to their age-matched counterparts in other regions of the world. Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) that offer protection against HIV and unintended pregnancy in a single product stand to address these dual sexual and reproductive health needs simultaneously. The aim of this scoping review is to identify factors that are important for optimizing the likelihood of MPT adoption by end users in SSA.MethodsStudy inclusion criteria included MPT research (HIV and pregnancy prevention dual indication) published or presented in English from 2000 to 2022 and conducted in SSA amongst end-users (women aged 15–44), male partners, health care providers, and community stakeholders. References were identified by searching peer reviewed literature, grey literature, conference presentations (2015–2022), grant databases, and outreach to MPT subject matter experts. Of 115 references identified, 37 references met inclusion criteria and were extracted for analysis. A narrative synthesis approach was used to summarize findings within and across MPT products.ResultsStudies were identified from six countries in SSA and a substantial proportion included a South African (n = 27) and/or Kenyan (n = 16) study site. Most studies utilized a qualitative study design (n = 22) and evaluated MPT acceptability and preferences by presenting hypothetical products through images or a list of product attributes (n = 21). The vaginal ring (n = 20), oral tablet (n = 20), and injection (n = 15) were examined most frequently. Across studies, there was high acceptability and demand for an HIV and pregnancy prevention MPT. End users valued choice in prevention product type as well as discreetness and long-acting options. Provider counseling and community sensitization were reported as essential for future introduction of novel MPT delivery forms.ConclusionRecognizing the heterogeneity of women's preferences and changing reproductive and sexual health needs over the life course, choice is important in the delivery of pregnancy and HIV prevention products as well as amongst MPT products with distinct product profiles. End user research with active MPTs, vs. hypothetical or placebo MPTs, is necessary to advance understanding of end-user preferences and acceptability of future products.

This study analyzed representations of disability and emotional support animals in the one-season Netflix children’s television show The Healing Powers of Dude (2020) through an inductive content analysis. The show followed Noah, an eleven-year-old boy with social anxiety disorder, as he navigated middle school with Dude, his emotional support nonhuman animal. Through the lens of cultivation theory and disability stereotypes, two main themes were identified. The first was disability as a burden to authority figures, with the subthemes of disability as something to isolate; for example, the support dog was portrayed as a problem for the principal, forcing Noah into isolation during lunchtime. The second overarching theme of “humor” included hyper-acting parents that pretended to have anxieties for entertainment purposes and Dude being used as a tool for humor and heartfelt heroism that saved a helpless disabled boy. The concepts of “entertainment” could be seen in how Dude performed dog tricks for laughs or had animated fights with other people and dogs. Although the show depicted Noah’s disability and accommodations in negative ways, Noah’s friends fostered a safe friendship environment where they offered solutions. Additionally, one friend in a wheelchair was depicted in empowering and counter-stereotypical ways, compared to how Noah’s non-apparent disability was depicted in a problematic way.