Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation for Animals: A Guide For The Consumer

The book is mainly what to look for in a physical therapist and what to expect from them. I would have liked more info on exercises you can do at home Physical therapy is not only for humans. It is actually beneficial to many animals. Whether the animal is a pampered pet or a working animal, there are many benefits to be gained.

This book explains the needs and benefits of physical therapy. Davis is a licensed physical therapist. She has more than three decades of experience. She worked initially in human physical therapy, but then veterinary physical therapy became her specialty. She has worked in many settings, from homecare to zoos. Physical therapy is used for a variety of reasons, treating the various stages of life, illness, injury, and age.

Physical therapy can also prevent or treat injuries. This is especially helpful in those who are active or working, whether in a competitive arena or a working situation. It can strengthen or promote healing, depending upon the need and case. In this book, you will learn about the history and evolution of physical therapy.

You will also learn about the many methods available, and their particular benefits. There are natural holistic methods available. These types of therapy may include Reiki and acupuncture, as well as many other options. Traditional methods may involve splints, wraps, and the use of manipulation or equipment. The reader learns the differences in traction and strengthening, as well as how each one works.

Using actual case studies, you will learn how the type of physical therapy is prescribed. You will then see how it can be utilized properly. Each animal, like each human, is different in both need and capability. Only a qualified healthcare expert can diagnose and prescribe the appropriate method.

However, an educated owner can help in maintenance and care of their pets.

1. Introduction

The book is easy to read and use. The author lists related topics and resources along with the appendix. I recommend this book to pet owners, and to those who work with animals. I have used physical therapy, and performed it on my pets. I can attest to its many benefits in healing and in prolonging quality of life. This is an essential volume to those who love the animals in their care. One person found this helpful. This is a delightful book, full of wit and wisdom about the physical rehabilitation of animals. Davis is an enthusiastic and experienced physical therapist, first with humans for over two decades, and now with animals.

Both her devotion and her expertise shine through in these pages. Her feelings for her patients, no matter what species, are infectious and will leave you with a deep admiration both for the animals and the humans who live, work, and share lives with them. Three quick disclosures to make: Third, I neither own nor work with any animals, so cannot comment on her assessment of them.

In order to do a review of this book that would be fair and thorough, I read it cover to cover, but I doubt that is the way most of you will want to take it on. Naturally, there will be some overlap in the recommendations, thus the repetition. The downside to this advice is that one risks missing out on some of the wonderful stories Susan has to tell about her patients. After all, how many physical therapists can you point to who have worked with dogs, cats, goats, camels, roosters, and a swan?

Not many, one would have to venture. And for each of these and all the dozens of others she has helped, Ms. Davis evinces her deep respect and love. It sounds as if she is indeed unique in her ability to build rapport with her charges. There are some minor glitches with this work. On the other hand, one of the most charming aspects of this book is how clearly the author's voice comes through in the pages of it. If too much editing had been done, this might have been lost. Far better to keep the errors they have their own peculiar charm than to lose the lovely, loving cadence of their author.

What comes through most clearly is how very fortunate the animals are who have her in their corner. See all 17 reviews. Amazon Giveaway allows you to run promotional giveaways in order to create buzz, reward your audience, and attract new followers and customers. Learn more about Amazon Giveaway. Set up a giveaway.

Customers who bought this item also bought. Practical Physiotherapy for Veterinary Nurses. There's a problem loading this menu right now. Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime. Get to Know Us. English Choose a language for shopping. In contrast, while no special training or certification is required to be designated as an ESA, housing providers are required to evaluate requests for an ESA by following the general principles for all reasonable accommodations.

Providers much consider whether the person seeking housing has a disability and whether their need for an assistance animal is related to the disability. Both service dogs and ESAs must be under effective control usually on a leash at all times, and follow all state laws and local ordinances. ADA law specifies that premises owners or other responsible personnel may ask that a service dog be removed if it is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it, or if it is not housebroken.

Given the somewhat overlapping terminology and recent proliferation of service dogs and ESAs, stories abound of people taking advantage of unclear policies [ 15 ]. To address the concern of fraud, many states are implementing new laws, most of which focus on service animals. A total of 19 states currently have laws in place regarding fraudulent representation of a service animal [ 16 ]. Yet, there is great variation in the breadth and penalties associated with these laws.

In contrast, Utah takes a much broader view of misrepresentation. While it is possible for an animal of any species to work as an emotional support or therapy animal, this paper will solely focus on public perceptions of dogs, in each of these roles. An online survey was created in Qualtrics to assess perceptions held by members of the United States general public regarding service dogs, emotional support dogs and therapy dogs.

The survey was designed, reviewed, and tested by the co-investigators and their colleagues at Colorado State University CSU and North Carolina State University NCSU after seeking input from representatives from the community who either trained, owned, or interacted with either service, emotional support, or therapy dogs. They were asked to provide feedback on content, navigability, survey questions and choices, and overall questionnaire design.

• Frequently bought together?
• Step It Up Knits: Take Your Skills to the Next Level with 25 Quick and Stylish Projects!
• Understanding and Dismantling the Root of Polygamy (Victorious Christian Living Book 5).
• The Reality of the Spirit: A Sermon of Meister Eckhart.
• Public Perceptions of Service Dogs, Emotional Support Dogs, and Therapy Dogs.
• Webseiten erstellen mit Joomla! 2.5 (German Edition)!
• Works of Epes Sargent.

Revisions were made based on this feedback in an ongoing process that involved several reiterations. Participants were recruited online, from 21 March to 4 April A small payment was offered for completion of the task, and offered to a total of participants. All data were collected anonymously.

The survey began by asking participants to rate their ability to define the terms service dog, therapy dog, and emotional support dog. After participants responded to this question, definitions of each type of assistance dog were provided for use in the remainder of the survey. The next section of the survey asked participants to indicate their perceptions of the value and acceptability of service, emotional support and therapy dogs, followed by a set of questions inviting respondents to estimate the percentage of people misrepresenting a need for a service or emotional support dog.

Subsequent sections enquired about the questions that can legally be asked of someone with a dog that appears to be an assistance animal, as well as the types of settings in which these dogs should be allowed. The last section of the survey contained demographic questions, such as age and educational level. The initial submissions were screened in order to exclude respondents who personally owned an emotional support or service dog.

The remaining data sets were screened for quality control, via a set of three questions with required responses. Participants who did not follow instructions for all three screening questions e. This is roughly equivalent to a The online survey was posted from 21 March to 4 April with a total of responses obtained.

The data was then screened as described above, resulting in a total of responses. However, the total number of responses for each question varied, since not all participants answered each question, therefore, the total numbers of responses are indicated where necessary. The gender distribution of participants was approximately equal, with males Most participants , Slightly more than one-half of the participants , When first asked to rate their ability to define three types of service dogs prior to any definitions given Table 2 , the majority of participants rated themselves as very comfortable or somewhat comfortable in defining service dog, emotional support dog, and therapy dog, with service dog receiving the largest proportion of very comfortable ratings , Once participants had rated their ability to define each type of assistance dog, they were presented with the definitions listed below, and asked to answer the rest of the survey using these definitions.

The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that it was acceptable for people to have a service dog if it was deemed helpful.

Public Perceptions of Service Dogs, Emotional Support Dogs, and Therapy Dogs

Approximately half of the respondents disagreed 67, After completing these questions, As seen in Table 4 , there was a substantial amount of confusion about the questions that can be legally asked to determine if a dog qualifies as an assistance dog. Most respondents , In regards to the dogs themselves, the majority of respondents correctly recognized what is allowable to enquire about the tasks an assistance dog is trained to perform , However, the responses were approximately evenly distributed when it came to enquiring if the service dog is required because of a disability.

Also of concern was the fact that just 81 participants Knowledge of legal enquiries pertaining to assistance dogs. Participants were asked to indicate which of the following questions they are legally permitted to ask in determining if an animal qualifies as an assistance dog.

Overall, the public seems to agree that assistance dogs should have broad access to residential dwellings, transportation, and educational institutions. Service dogs appeared to have the greatest rate of acceptance, with participants Only 43 participants The response frequencies for emotional support dogs were slightly less favorable, with less than half of the participants feeling they should be allowed in airplane cabins, dormitories, or classroom settings, but only 54 respondents The responses for therapy dogs were the least favorable regarding access to public spaces.

Public perceptions of appropriate levels of access for assistance dogs. Participants were able to select as many types of assistance dogs as they felt applicable for each scenario. Most respondents had minimal prior contact with assistance dogs in public settings. Approximately half , A similar trend was found for suspected misrepresentation of need for an emotional support dog. As assistance animals become more prevalent in society, there appears to be a parallel increase in the frequency of allegations of misrepresentation or fraudulent representation of animals as assistance animals.

This confusion paves the way for misrepresentation of pets as assistance animals in order to gain illegitimate benefits, thereby increasing skepticism and scrutiny of legitimate assistance animals. Even though 19 states have passed laws against fraudulent representation of assistance animals [ 16 ], public confusion and lack of a standardized certification process makes these laws all but unenforceable from a practical point of view.

The goal of this study was to address public perception regarding three types of assistance dogs: In this study, despite expressing a high level of confidence in defining the roles of service dogs, emotional support dogs, and therapy dogs, participants were still not able to fully apply these definitions and identify the legally-acceptable questions they can ask to identify a true assistance dog. It is interesting to note that a greater percentage of respondents expressed confidence in their ability to define a service dog than an emotional support dog or a therapy dog.

This might be related to the longer history of working with assistance animals as guide dogs for the blind [ 19 ], as well as the more readily observable tasks performed by a service dog assisting a physically handicapped user. In contrast, emotional support dogs alleviate an invisible disability, making it more challenging for casual observers to understand their role and how they are helping an owner with a mental illness. After reading the definitions of each type of assistance dog, study participants indicated their agreement with a series of statements about the perceived ability of an assistance animal to help users with a legitimate disability.

Overall acceptance of assistance animal ownership was high, with the majority of participants agreeing that there is nothing wrong with people having an assistance animal if they feel it is useful. Once again, service dogs generated the highest rate of acceptance.

Even though service dogs were more broadly accepted, participants still felt that other types of assistance dogs should be given special privileges. This issue is further complicated by the difficulties associated with identifying a legitimate assistance dog in a public setting. In order to protect the rights of disabled individuals, the ADA limits the questions that may be asked when the type of service being provided by an assistance animal is not obvious. Under these laws, people may only ask if the dog or miniature horse is a service animal that is required because of a disability, and what work or task the dog has been trained to perform.

Since access to residential dwellings is governed by the Fair Housing Act, providers are allowed to ask individuals seeking emotional support animals of any species as a reasonable accommodation to provide documentation from a health professional. This letter must establish that the individual in question has a disability, and the emotional support animal will provide some type of disability-related assistance or emotional support [ 7 ].

While airlines may sometimes request this same type of letter, this type of proof is not required under the Air Carrier Act. Instead, airlines must accept identification cards, other written documentation, the presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal [ 13 , 14 ].

The majority of participants felt service dogs should be allowed in airplane cabins, school dormitories and classrooms. These perceptions are in line with current laws regarding access to public areas for service dogs. A potential area for concern is that This practice is illegal under the FHA [ 6 , 7 ]. The mismatch with public perceptions may be due to a lack of understanding—either of the role of a service dog, or of the overlapping laws governing access to housing.

Public opinion regarding access for emotional support dogs was not as positive, with only Although this right is protected by the Air Carrier Act [ 13 , 14 ], the lower threshold of proof required for access may have resulted in a greater number of people having a negative perception of emotional support dogs. This could be due to an encounter with a poorly-trained emotional support animal, or one perceived to be fraudulent, in the confines of an airplane cabin.

The FHA rules about emotional support animals also apply to residential dwellings, as well as school dormitories, guaranteeing these animals the right to reside with their owners [ 7 ]. Thus, it is concerning to see that Moreover, while a sizeable percentage of respondents While we might surmise why this perception is held e.

Public endorsement of emotional support dogs in classrooms was poor, with only This opinion matches current laws, as emotional support animals are not guaranteed the right to be present in classroom settings. Masinter [ 22 , 23 ] explains that even if an ESA is allowed to live in campus housing, an independent determination should be made as to whether the ESA is also needed for classroom access, based solely on the ADA and section of the Rehabilitation Act standards.

Respondents were more likely to agree that property owners should be able to refuse therapy dogs This belief matches FHA law, which does not consider therapy dogs to be a reasonable accommodation [ 6 , 7 ] because they are not providing a service to a specific individual. Interestingly, the public was slightly more supportive of therapy dogs being allowed in classroom settings Therapy dogs were the least likely to be viewed as appropriate for residing in school dormitories The reasons behind this perception are an interesting area for future research, especially in light of the already-existing processes for evaluation and registration of therapy dogs.

We speculate that public perceptions may be based upon the definition of therapy dogs as being part of a treatment team, and the assumption that professionals, such as therapists and counselors do not usually reside in dormitories. Even though most participants in this study had minimal prior contact with service dogs and emotional support dogs, their overall perception of the legitimacy of these types of assistance dogs was quite high. As seen in Table 6 , most respondents felt that there were relatively low incidence rates of misrepresentation.

The chi-square comparison for gender found that women reported lower perceived rates of misrepresentation for both service dogs and emotional support dogs than men. This might be because women are, by nature, more trusting, as research has found that increased levels of testosterone correlate with increased levels of suspicion [ 24 ] and decreased interpersonal trust [ 25 ].

Furthermore, women are more likely to regain trust after repeated transgressions [ 26 ], which could explain why even multiple exposures to animals clearly misrepresented as assistance dogs would make less of an impression on female respondents. A partial explanation for this perception can be found in prior research by Poulin [ 27 ], which found that levels of interpersonal trust increase as people age.

Benefits of Physical Therapy for Dogs

However, the fact that this trend was only statistically significant for service dogs warrants further exploration. It is possible that longer history and stringent accreditation requirements associated with service dogs, specifically guide dogs [ 19 ], were determining factors in how these dogs are perceived. Since we did not ask participants to explain the rationale for their responses, we can only speculate about the cause for this finding. Another possible explanation could be greater awareness of the duties performed by a true service animal, and consideration of how many people actually need this level of support.

Despite these statistical differences, in general, most respondents to our survey perceived relatively low rates of assistance dog misrepresentation. Assuming that the results of this survey are representative of true public opinion, it appears that the media may be over-representing the views of a small, but vocal, minority when it comes to allegations of assistance dog fraud.

While the results of the survey describe a generally favorable landscape for assistance dogs, our findings must be interpreted within the limitations of this study. This study relied on participants to self-report their true opinions and knowledge regarding assistance dogs, thus there is the possibility for social desirability bias. However, this was mitigated as much as possible by anonymous data collection, and by tapping a pool of participants with no prior connections to the researchers.

The age distribution of participants led to the classification of all subjects over 45 years of age into a single group.