{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0249500998003992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010728542914171657, 'mean_word_length': 5.343354430379747, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary on “Canine Visitation (Pet) Therapy: Pilot Data on Decreases in Child Pain Perception”

The purpose of the descriptive pilot study conducted by Sobo, Eng, and Kassity-Kritch (2005) was to explore the effectiveness of canine visitation therapy (CVT) in pediatric pain management. Children continue to suffer moderate to severe postoperative pain despite the current focus on effective pain management and pain management being considered a patient right (Bennett-Branson & Craig, 1993; Cohen, 1993; Kokki, 2004). Pharmacologic interventions for acute pain continue to be offered as the current standard therapy although the research shows that effective pain management requires an approach that includes pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) has been shown to have many positive benefits for a variety of adult populations and currently is practiced in about 600 hospitals in the United States (Roosevelt, 2001). Included among the ways that medical professionals may use animals therapeutically is animal visitation therapy (AVT) in which the animal initiates contact with the patient to increase responsiveness and provide pleasure. There have not been many research studies published that evaluate the effect of AAT interventions, and most of the studies have involved patients who were adults or elderly. In the few published studies that focused on children, none focused on the specific area of CVT intervention and the effect it may have on pain management. Sobo et al. (2005) utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate an existing CVT intervention in 25 children older than 5 years of age, in the postoperative acute pain service of a children’s hospital. The sample included English-speaking, mostly White and Hispanic patients (there was one Black patient) from age 5 to 18 years. All of the participants were experiencing acute postoperative pain, did not have any chronic conditions, were not developmentally delayed, and were not in isolation; and the patient and parent agreed to be part of the study. Prior to the intervention, quantitative data were collected about physical pain and emotional distress using scales specifically developed for children. These scales measured physical pain on one side and emotional distress on the other. An example of the physical pain scale choices included 10 (“hurting a whole lot, very uncomfortable, severe pain”), whereas an example of the emotional distress side included 10 (“very scared, very nervous, very worried”). Specific administration instructions were included. After the intervention was completed, data were again collected about physical pain and emotional distress using the specific scales. The qualitative 5-minute interview was then conducted in which the interview question “What did you (or your child) like about the dog’s visit?” was asked. The interventions were all delivered by a Delta Society certified female West Highland terrier who had been involved in CVT since she was 3 months old. The patient decided which level of intervention would take place. The levels included passive interaction (the dog sat or slept with the child), low interaction (the dog did occasional pet tricks), and high interaction (the dog and child had active, playful roughhousing or walked). The researchers looked at the preand postintervention differences for physical pain and emotional distress and used paired t tests to examine the significance of these differences. Even though the sample was small, the differences for physical pain and emotional distress were found to be significant. The intervention chosen most often was the low-intensity intervention with the time duration between 11 minutes and 20 minutes. This type of intervention and the time involvement make this a viable option for inclusion in the pain management regime of hospitalized pediatric patients. Themes developed from the qualitative interviews with the children and parents included distraction