Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42495207›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

Agency denied: PADA and the perils of paternalistic dog care.

Sandra Foltin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. 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

1 author.

Sandra FoltinUniversität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dog-Assisted Interventions (DAI) or Dog-Assisted Services (DAS) are commonly regarded as compassionate practices, promoting human wellbeing through interspecies interactions. Recognition and popularity of adjunctive interventions and clinical applications have grown in recent decades. The increasing professionalization, whilst positive with respect to amplified knowledge in terms of the theoretical understanding and focus upon welfare, also poses risks, however, for the canine participants. Increasing classification to identify suitable animals by applying standardized tests and placing dogs into predetermined categories devalues their individuality, their idiosyncrasies, and their unique, authentic worth - the very qualities prized in dog-assisted interventions. This paper offers a critical analysis of the Personality Assessment for Dogs in Animal Assisted Interventions (PADA) - a test commonly utilized to evaluate dogs' suitability for DAIs. The central objective is to evaluate the ethical and welfare implications of the PADA test design. While PADA describes itself as a safeguard for welfare, we come to the result that it produces the opposite effect: by emphasizing predictability, obedience and subservience, it risks undermining dogs' agency, their emotional autonomy, and their genuine wellbeing, consistent with current positive welfare standards. Furthermore, every DAI/DAS relies on pro-active handler management. Competence, knowledge, mindfulness and attention to the individual dog's strengths and limits and the commitment to protecting its welfare are the most essential factors determining the quality of any intervention. Only if the handler is empathetic, ensures suitable interaction conditions, and supports the dog through secure attachment - a quality that emerges within the relationship, shaped by the handler's caregiving behavior and interaction style - can a DAI/DAS be considered truly effective and ethically responsible. Therefore, the core pre-requisite is the competent handler and any assessment must evaluate handler aptitude first. This critical component is entirely absent in PADA. A structured welfare audit of the PADA test was applied, using IAHAIO (International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organizations) White Paper (2018/2023) ethical guidelines, Mellor's Five Domains Model (2020) and the Agency-Based Welfare Science paradigm (Špinka, 2019) to examine how each exercise supports or restricts canine agency, autonomy, and affective engagement.

Indexed as

animal assisted servicesassessmentDAIdog agencydog assisted servicesfive freedomsPADAwelfare

Identifiers

PMID42495207
PMCPMC13391819

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.