Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32982035›Full record

ArticleProfessional psychology, research and practice2020

Emotional Support Animal Assessments: Toward a Standard and Comprehensive Model for Mental Health Professionals.

Jeffrey N Younggren, Cassandra L Boness, Leisl M Bryant, Gerald P Koocher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Professional psychology, research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeffrey N YounggrenUniversity of New Mexico.
Cassandra L BonessUniversity of Missouri.
Leisl M BryantPrivate Practice.
Gerald P KoocherQuincy College.

Funding

Initial Development and Validation of a Translational Approach to AUD Definition and MeasurementF31AA026177 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI BONESS, CASSANDRA LEE · 2017 to 2019
$131k
NIAAA NIH HHS F31 AA026177
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growth in the presence of Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) in our society has recently garnered a substantial amount of attention, both in the popular media and the professional literature. Public media abounds with stories focusing on the increasing number of animals claimed as ESAs, the impact of this growth on society, the industry claiming to certify ESAs, and the various types of animals described as "certified." The authors propose an assessment model for ESAs certification comprising a four-pronged approach for conducting these types of assessments: (1) understanding, recognizing, and applying the laws regulating ESAs, (2) a thorough valid assessment of the individual requesting an ESA certification, (3) an assessment of the animal in question to ensure it actually performs the valid functions of an ESA, and (4) an assessment of the interaction between the animal and the individual to determine whether the animal's presence has a demonstrably beneficial effect on that individual. This model aligns with professional ethics, standards of professional practice, and the law and seeks to provide clear guidelines for mental health professionals conducting ESA evaluations.

Indexed as

assessmentdisabilityemotional support animalESAethics

Identifiers

PMID32982035
PMCPMC7517601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.