Wagner, Cora and Gaab, Jens and Locher, Cosima and Hediger, Karin. (2021) Lack of effects of the presence of a dog on pain perception in healthy participants - a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Pain Research, 2. p. 87.
![]() |
PDF
- Published Version
Available under License CC BY (Attribution). 629Kb |
Official URL: https://edoc.unibas.ch/86048/
Downloads: Statistics Overview
Abstract
Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) have been shown to be effective in the treatment of pain. Studies suggest that relationships with animals can have comparable qualities to relationships with humans and that this enables animals to provide social support. Further, the presence of an animal can strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and treatment providers. This suggests that the analgesic effects of AAI might be mediated by social support from an animal or by strengthening the alliance between the patient and the treatment provider. To test these assumptions, we examined the effects of the presence of a dog on experimentally induced pain in a pain assessment and a pain therapy context. Hundred thirty-two healthy participants were randomly assigned to the conditions "pain," "pain + dog," "pain + placebo," or "pain + placebo + dog." We collected baseline and posttreatment measurements of heat-pain tolerance and the heat-pain threshold and of the corresponding subjective ratings of heat-pain intensity and unpleasantness as well as of participants' perceptions of the study investigator. The primary outcome was heat-pain tolerance. The presence of the dog did not influence the primary outcome ("pain" vs. "pain + dog": difference = 0.04, CI = -0.66 to 0.74, p = 0.905; "pain + placebo" vs. "pain + placebo + dog": difference = 0.43, CI = -0.02 to 0.88, p = 0.059). Participants did also not perceive the study investigator to be more trustworthy in the presence of the dog ("pain" vs. "pain + dog": difference = 0.10, CI = -0.67 to 0.87, p = 0.796; "pain + placebo" vs. "pain + placebo + dog": difference = 0.11, CI = -0.43 to 0.64, p = 0.695). The results indicate that the mere presence of a dog does not contribute to pain reduction and that the analgesic effects of AAI that previous studies have found is not replicated in our study as AAI did not increase perceived social support and had no effect on the alliance between the participant and the treatment provider. We assume that the animal most likely needs to be an integrated and plausible part of the treatment rationale so that participants are able to form a treatment-response expectation toward AAI.
Faculties and Departments: | 07 Faculty of Psychology > Departement Psychologie > Health & Intervention > Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy (Hediger) 07 Faculty of Psychology > Departement Psychologie > Health & Intervention > Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie (Gaab) 09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) > Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (EPH) 09 Associated Institutions > Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (Swiss TPH) > Department of Epidemiology and Public Health (EPH) > Human and Animal Health > One Health (Zinsstag) |
---|---|
UniBasel Contributors: | Hediger, Karin and Wagner, Cora and Gaab, Jens and Locher, Cosima |
Item Type: | Article, refereed |
Article Subtype: | Research Article |
Publisher: | Frontiers Media |
e-ISSN: | 2673-561X |
Note: | Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article |
Language: | English |
Identification Number: | |
edoc DOI: | |
Last Modified: | 17 Nov 2022 16:33 |
Deposited On: | 17 Nov 2022 16:33 |
Repository Staff Only: item control page