Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40106458›Full record

ReviewPloS one2025

Obstacles to inclusion and threats to civil rights: An integrative review of the social experiences of service dog partners in the United States.

Sarah C Leighton, Molly E Hofer, Cara A Miller, Matthias R Mehl, Tammi D Walker, Evan L MacLean, Marguerite E O'Haire

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Sarah C LeightonCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Arizona, Oro Valley, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8441-0047
Molly E HoferCollege of Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Cara A MillerSchool of Human Services and Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Matthias R MehlCollege of Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Tammi D WalkerCollege of Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3141-5164
Evan L MacLeanCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Arizona, Oro Valley, Arizona, United States of America.
Marguerite E O'HaireCollege of Veterinary Medicine, University of Arizona, Oro Valley, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4910-3126

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Service dogs, trained to assist people with disabilities, are known to impact their human partners' social experiences. While service dogs can act as a "social bridge," facilitating greater social connection under certain circumstances, many service dog partners also encounter challenges in social settings because of the presence of their service dog - despite legal protections. Among the most common challenges reported are experiences of stigma, discrimination, and access or service denials. This preregistered integrative review sought to synthesize empirical, theoretical, and legal literature to understand better the social experiences reported by service dog partners in the United States, including (1) civil rights experiences; (2) experiences of stigma and discrimination; and (3) broader social experiences. Following database searches and article screening, a total of N = 43 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Analyses were conducted in two stages: first, synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings to explore the magnitude of social experiences reported by empirical articles and second, narrative synthesis to integrate findings across all article types. Analyses identified three themes: Adverse Social Experiences, Contributing Factors, and Proposed Solutions. Overall, we found consistent reports of stigma, discrimination, and access denials for service dog handlers. Additionally, these adverse experiences may be more common for service dog partners with disabilities not externally visible (i.e., invisible disabilities such as diabetes or substantially limiting mental health conditions). This integrative review highlights a pattern of social marginalization and stigmatization for some service dog partners, exacerbated by inadequate legal protection and widespread service dog fraud. These findings have implications for the individual well-being of people with disabilities partnered with service dogs and highlight a need for collective efforts to increase inclusion and access. Effective solutions likely require a multi-component approach operating at various socio-ecological levels.

Indexed as

Civil RightsAnimalsDogsHumansPersons with DisabilitiesSocial StigmaUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40106458
PMCPMC11922260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.