N M Petry1, J A Wagner2, C J Rash3, K K Hood4. 1. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: npetry@uchc.edu. 2. University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine, USA. 3. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, USA. 4. Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Patients with diabetes increasingly have questions about diabetes alert dogs. This study evaluated perceptions about dogs trained professionally or otherwise to detect glucose levels. METHODS: A link to a survey about glucose detecting dogs was announced on diabetes websites. RESULTS: 135 persons responded, with 63 answering about their child with diabetes. Most respondents obtained their dog from a professional trainer (n = 54) or trained it themselves (n = 51). Owners of self- and professionally-trained dogs were very positive about dogs' abilities to alert them to low and high glucose levels, while owners of dogs that learned entirely on their own (n = 15) reported lower frequencies of alerts and more missed hypoglycemic episodes, p<.01. Regardless of how dogs learned, perceptions about managing diabetes were improved during periods of dog ownership relative to times without, p<.001. Self-reported rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations, assistance from others for treating hypoglycemia, and accidents or near accidents while driving reduced during periods of dog ownership compared to periods without dogs, ps<.01. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest potential effectiveness of and high satisfaction with glucose-detecting dogs. Clinicians can use these results to address pros and cons of dog ownership with patients who inquire about them.
AIMS: Patients with diabetes increasingly have questions about diabetes alert dogs. This study evaluated perceptions about dogs trained professionally or otherwise to detect glucose levels. METHODS: A link to a survey about glucose detecting dogs was announced on diabetes websites. RESULTS: 135 persons responded, with 63 answering about their child with diabetes. Most respondents obtained their dog from a professional trainer (n = 54) or trained it themselves (n = 51). Owners of self- and professionally-trained dogs were very positive about dogs' abilities to alert them to low and high glucose levels, while owners of dogs that learned entirely on their own (n = 15) reported lower frequencies of alerts and more missed hypoglycemic episodes, p<.01. Regardless of how dogs learned, perceptions about managing diabetes were improved during periods of dog ownership relative to times without, p<.001. Self-reported rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations, assistance from others for treating hypoglycemia, and accidents or near accidents while driving reduced during periods of dog ownership compared to periods without dogs, ps<.01. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest potential effectiveness of and high satisfaction with glucose-detecting dogs. Clinicians can use these results to address pros and cons of dog ownership with patients who inquire about them.