Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40646795›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Balancing Objectivity and Welfare: Physiological and Behavioural Responses of Guide Dogs During an Independent Certification Protocol.

Viola Faerber-Morak, Lisa-Maria Glenk, Karl Weissenbacher, Annika Bremhorst

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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

4 authors.

Viola Faerber-MorakCoordination Center for Assistance Dogs, The Interuniversity Messerli Research Institute of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna and University Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Lisa-Maria GlenkKarl Landsteiner Research Institute for Neurochemistry, Neuropharmacology, Neurorehabilitation and Pain Treatment Mauer-Amstetten, 3362 Mauer-Amstetten, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5814-0546
Karl WeissenbacherCoordination Center for Assistance Dogs, The Interuniversity Messerli Research Institute of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna and University Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria.
Annika BremhorstDogs and Science, 8142 Uitikon-Waldegg, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2185-3101

Funding

Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guide dogs are essential in supporting the autonomy of blind and visually impaired individuals. Austria is the first country to implement a legally mandated, two-stage certification protocol for the official recognition of guide dogs, assessed by an independent authority. The first stage includes two evaluation phases: the dog guides its familiar trainer (Phase 1) and then an unfamiliar blind tester (Phase 2). While Phase 2 ensures an objective assessment of guiding performance, it may also introduce stress due to the unfamiliar handler and separation from the trainer that could impact welfare and behaviour. This study aimed to evaluate whether Phase 2 of the Austrian evaluation protocol elicits higher stress than Phase 1 in guide dogs and, hence, needs to be refined in this regard by comparing physiological and behavioural responses between the two test phases. Fourteen guide dogs were assessed during real evaluations. Salivary cortisol was collected before the evaluation day and at several time points on the evaluation day (before and after each phase). Behavioural responses were coded from video recordings of the first 5 and 15 min of each phase, including stress-related behaviours, task-related performance behaviours, and handler behaviours. Cortisol levels did not differ significantly between the phases. Dogs turned around significantly more often in Phase 2, potentially seeking reassurance, but showed a non-significant trend toward fewer stress-related behaviours. Verbal praise occurred more frequently with the unfamiliar tester. These findings suggest that the current evaluation protocol does not induce substantial physiological or behavioural stress when dogs are guided by an unfamiliar tester, supporting its continued use as a welfare-conscious and objective certification approach that could also potentially serve as a model for other countries.

Indexed as

behaviour analysisblind handlerscertification protocolsdog welfareguide dogsindependent evaluationsalivary cortisolstress assessmenttask performanceworking dogs

Identifiers

PMID40646795
PMCPMC12248611

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.