Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study was designed to better understand how service dog partners experience the loss of their service dog. An anonymous survey was distributed to service dog partners who had lost a dog within the last five years. One-way ANOVAs were used to assess loss differences (retirement vs. death) on scores for Centrality of Events Scale, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, Social Constraints Measure, and Self-Compassion Scale. Linear regression was conducted on the total bereavement score to determine the impact of the above assessment measures. We found higher grief scores for those whose service dog died compared to those whose dog retired. Perceptions of social constraints and feelings related to the centrality of the event were predictors of overall grief for those who lost a dog due to retirement; centrality of event feelings predicted grief level for those experiencing a death. Findings suggest a need for grief support for service dog partners.

Keywords

service dog death retirement grief < bereavement loss < bereavement

Introduction

Advances in medicine have given rise to the number of individuals with disabilities who are able to live longer, fuller lives. In the United States, 26% of adults report having some type of disability (Bureau, n.d.) and service dogs are increasingly seen as a viable option to support this population. A growing body of research suggests that service dogs offer numerous benefits including social support, an increased sense of well-being, and a decreased need for alternative forms of service (Ng & Fine, 2019; Walther et al., 2017; Winkle et al., 2012). Despite the growing use of service dogs, there is a dearth of information about the impact of the loss of these partnerships – either through death or retirement. Yet, the relationship between a service dog and partner is unique; significantly different than that between a companion pet and guardian. Notably, unlike the loss of a companion dog, the loss of a service animal places the partner in a physically, vocationally, and socially vulnerable position (Herlache-Pretzer et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2020). Thus, the research that has been conducted on grief and loss following the death of a companion animal may not generalize to the loss of a service animal.

Service Dogs

Service dogs, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Bureau, n.d.), are individually trained to perform specific tasks for an individual person with a verifiable physical, psychiatric, intellectual, sensory, or mental disability (US Department of Justice, 2021). Service animals have public access rights; by law, they can accompany their partner in almost all public places (US Department of Justice, 2021). The only animal species currently recognized by the ADA as eligible to fulfill the role of service animals are dogs, and in select instances, miniature horses (US Department of Justice, 2021) Examples of service animals include guide dogs for the visually impaired, hearing service dogs, and psychiatric or medical alert animals such as seizure detection dogs. It is important to note that a key feature of a service animal's training is that they are taught to perform specific and often complex tasks that are directly related to their human partner's disability. For example, a service dog might be trained to alert their partner to an oncoming medical emergency, such as a seizure, or to lie close to their partner during a seizure to protect them from hurting themselves. Another type of service dog may be trained to retrieve objects that an individual with physical limitations is unable to retrieve on their own. Training a service animal typically involves approximately two years of intensive training and a significant initial and ongoing financial investment. As a result, it is not unusual for people to wait up to three years to receive an appropriately trained service dog (Gravrok et al., 2020).

Relationship Between Service Dog and Partner

Given the dynamics of the service dog/partner relationship, including the personal, financial and time investment, partners often have a very strong connection with their dog. The bond between a service dog and partner is unique; a supportive and independence-enhancing relationship (Stewart, 2006). Numerous studies have identified how service dogs positively impact people with disabilities, including the ability to foster opportunities for socialization and community participation. Specific examples include an increase in human-to-human contacts, more social greetings and interactions with strangers, increased opportunities to engage with others while at work or social functions, and a shift in focus from the partner's disability to one of competence (Hart et al., 1987; Lane et al., 1998). Fairman and Huebner [12] noted that service dogs provide emotional support and security, while Rintala et al. (Rintala et al., 2008) found that service dogs contribute to an increased sense of independence, benefitting not only the partner, but also their caregivers. Other physical benefits, particularly in regard to service dogs for the visually impaired, include increased mobility and faster walking (Walther et al., 2017).

One of the biggest challenges for a person with a disability is overcoming feelings of being different and the stigma often associated with having a disability. These individuals often struggle with perceived social acceptance, particularly in areas such as athletic competence and career development. A service dog can help by changing someone's personal identity to one of a person–dog team, thereby softening feelings associated with being stigmatized (Sanders, 2000).

In addition, service dogs can increase people's sense of control, resulting in increased confidence and self-concept (Wiggett-Barnard & Steel, 2008). Furthermore, service dogs provide companionship and comfort. For all these reasons, the loss of a service dog can have a profound impact on their partner.

Service Dog Partners’ Grief Response

Inevitably, a time will arise within each relationship between a service dog and partner where the dog's working role will end, whether through the dog's retirement or death. The transition to retirement, when a dog reaches a point in which it can no longer function as a service dog, can be an ambiguous loss; one without closure and multiple layers of loss and grief (Boss, 2000). While the service dog may not have died, the essence and mutual benefits of the partnership have been lost (Whelan, 2017). In contrast, partners who have lost their service dogs as a result of death experience a concrete loss, yet still often lack the benefit of a supportive community that truly understands the significance of this loss (Chur-Hansen, 2010). While grieving partners may find understanding within the service dog community who recognize the strength and meaning of the unique relationship, they often encounter challenges in talking about the loss of their dog with family members, work colleagues, and friends (Chur-Hansen, 2010). This places these individuals at increased risk for experiencing disenfranchised grief – a loss that involves limited social recognition and a lack of ritualized support (PhD, 1999). Furthermore, when considering that service dog partners typically lose several dogs over the course of their lives, the magnitude of this type of loss has the potential to grow exponentially over the years (Wenthold & Savage, 2007; Yamamoto & Hart, 2019). Each loss is unique, however, and is often a significant life event.

Centrality of Events

Significant events can become a central part of an individual's identity. For those who have undergone a stressful life event, the centrality of the event has been shown to be closely associated with the presence of psychopathology. Stressful event centrality, in the form of loss, has been found to be associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, prolonged grief disorder, and depression, even when controlling for attachment style, relationship to the deceased, cause of death, time since loss, and unexpectedness of the death (Boelen & Prigerson, 2012). The loss of a service dog (from retirement or death) is often a significant life event, due in part to the lost relationship, but also, because of the changes this brings to one's independence and activities of daily living. Factors that might influence the centrality of this loss for service dog partners include their level of attachment anxiety (Field et al., 2005), their emotional connection with their dog (C. Bussolari et al., 2021; Wrobel and Dye, 2003), their dependence on their service dog to conduct their daily activities, and their perceived level of social support (Jacobson et al., 2017).

Social Constraints

One form of inadequate social support, and a predictor of distress related to traumatic events, is social constraints defined as “both objective social conditions and individuals’ construal of those conditions that lead individuals to refrain from or modify their disclosure of stress and trauma-related thoughts, feelings, or concerns” (Lepore & Revenson, 2007). Negative social interactions can impact cognitive and emotional processing of stress-related concerns by discouraging individuals from disclosing their concerns. Deficits in the processing of concerns may, in turn, impede psychological adjustment. In the context of companion animal loss, individuals who have high social constraints related to bereavement report higher levels of perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and negative mental health and functional outcomes compared to those without constraints (Habarth et al., 2017; Juth et al., 2015) They also have lower self-compassion (Bussolari et al., 2018). One aspect of loss and resultant grieving that is especially challenging for many in terms of social constraints involves the ongoing relationship and connection that many people have with those they have lost.

Continuing Bonds

Although separated from their service dog, whether through death or retirement, the bond formed between those with disabilities and their service dogs frequently remains strong. Recent grief theories (Field et al., 2005; Neimeyer et al., 2006) suggest that individuals process their grief by integrating memories, smells, and tangible items of their loved ones into their present day. This meaning-making process enables individuals to find comfort during their time of loss and has been labeled “continuing bonds” (Klass et al., 1996). While initially studied in human loss contexts, more recently, researchers have investigated the role of continuing bonds in the area of pet loss (Field et al., 2005, 2009; Habarth et al., 2017; Packman et al., 2011). Packman et al. (2011), for example, identified 12 means of expressing continuing bonds with pets including cherishing a pet's belongings and associated places, having dreams or reminiscing about a lost pet, and creating a pet memorial (Habarth et al., 2017). Packman et al. found that bereaved pet guardians report utilizing a wide range of continuing bonds and typically report finding them more comforting than distressing. The use of such coping strategies can be one form of self-compassion.

Self-Compassion

Inspired by Eastern and Buddhist philosophy, self-compassion has been described by Neff (2003) as attention and care directed toward oneself. Neff (2003) proposed that self-compassion encompasses three facets: self-kindness (vs. self- judgment); a sense of a common humanity (vs. a sense of isolation); and a cultivation of mindfulness, referring to present-moment, nonjudgmental awareness and attention. In addition, self- compassion has been described as a way to activate self-soothing and self-regulating functions associated with trauma and loss (Gilbert, 2014). Studies suggest promising connections between self-compassion and psychological well-being, emotional resilience and well-being, as well as decreased depression and anxiety (Fong & Loi, 2016; Neff, 2009; Neff et al., 2007). Self-compassion has also been found to moderate reactions to distressing situations involving negative events (Leary et al., 2007; Muris & Petrocchi, 2017).

There is minimal research on self-compassion and grief, however, initial findings relevant to bereavement suggest important associations. For example, Neff (2009) noted that engaging in self-compassion can be helpful when the perceived suffering is felt to be too difficult to bear or impossible to control. Furthermore, Lenferink et al. (2017) found, in a sample of relatives of long-standing missing persons, a negative association between self-compassion and emotional distress. In a recent pet loss study, researchers found that participants with more self-compassion reported less intense grief, less frequency of dismissive or negative social interactions, and better psychosocial functioning (Bussolari et al., 2018). Taking previous research into account, it stands to reason that within the context of pet bereavement, self-compassion could play a supportive and protective role.

While many factors that impact grief have been studied in the context of companion animal loss, no research to date has explored how these topics relate to service dog loss. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how service dog partners experience the loss of their service dog through either death or retirement. Given this unique relationship, we were interested in the specific ways that this often-repetitive loss is associated with psychosocial functioning and bereavement. We were also interested in comparing these outcomes to previous studies on grief responses and continuing bond coping strategies following pet loss.

Materials and Methods

An anonymous online survey was created using Qualtrics software, in collaboration with Canine Companions for Independence (CCI), to evaluate service dog partners’ experiences and perceptions surrounding the loss of a service dog through retirement or death. The survey was created and tested by researchers and experts in the field of service dogs and then piloted to test for appropriate branching, flow of questions, ambiguity, and potentially missing or inappropriate response options. The survey was distributed via an email invitation to all recipients of a CCI trained dog who had lost their dog through death or retirement within the previous five years (N = 383) and was available from September 7, 2020 to December 3, 2020. Three follow-up messages were sent after the initial invitation.

The survey was designed to use branching logic to only display relevant questions for each participant, based on service dog loss through retirement or death. Demographic data on participants were collected (marital status, number of adults in the household, number of children, education level, ethnicity, sex, and income). In addition, information about their dog was obtained, including type of service dog lost, age upon retirement/death, length of relationship, reported feelings of preparedness for the loss, whether a new dog was acquired (and if so, how much time passed between the loss and the new dog), and total number of dogs lost via selection of specific options from pre-determined lists. Those who lost a dog due to retirement were asked what happened to the dog upon retirement. For those who had lost a dog due to death, they were asked specific questions about the death (cause of death, if the dog was euthanized (and if so, who made the decision), and feelings related to the ability to prevent the death). Free-text boxes were provided for participants to enter brief alternate answers when none of the listed options applied to them. A final question at the end of the survey allowed participants to provide their contact information if they were interested in a follow-up interview.

Survey Instruments

The remaining parts of the survey consisted of several validated measures to assess the impact and potential mitigating factors of the loss and compare these factors for loss caused by retirement versus death. To assess attachment, the Human-Animal Attachment Measure (HAAM) (Stewart, 2006) was used. To assess the impact of the loss, participants were given The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire (PBQ) (Hunt & Padilla, 2006), The Centrality of Events Scale (CES) (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006), The Continuing Bonds Interview (CBI) (N. Field et al., personal communication, 2007) and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) (Lepore & Ituarte, 1997; Tennant et al., 2007). Additional aspects of the survey included The Social Constraints Measure (SCS) (Lepore & Ituarte, 1997) and self-compassion, measured by The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF) (Raes et al., 2011).

The human-animal attachment measure

The Human-Animal Attachment Measure (HAAM) (Stewart, 2006) is an 18-item measure that assesses attachment as one total score that includes proximity seeking, secure base, and safe haven components. Items are coded on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The reported overall inter-item reliability is α = .96 (Stewart, 2006). The Cronbach's alpha for each of the composite scores has been reported as 0.96 for proximity seeking, 0.94 for secure base, and 0.80 for safe haven (Stewart, 2006). Mean scores for people with mobility disabilities have been reported as 2.99 (SD 0.79) for proximity seeking, 2.44 (SD 0.41) for secure base, and 2.36 (SD 0.42) for safe haven. These scores can be compared to pet owners mean scores: 4.19 (SD 0.50) for proximity seeking, 3.97 (SD .51) for secure base, and 2.95 (SD .49) for safe haven.

The Pet bereavement questionnaire

The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire (PBQ) (Eckerd et al., 2016; Hunt & Padilla, 2006)) is a 16-item measure in which respondents answer questions on a 4-point Likert scale for the single construct of pet bereavement based on three factors: grief, anger, and guilt. Possible scores range from 0 to 48. The scale assesses the level of grief individuals report after experiencing the death of a pet, and has reported good internal consistency reliability and validity (Hunt & Padilla, 2006). The PBQ was modified slightly in the current study with internal consistency for the total Pet Bereavement Questionnaire α = 0.90 for the retirement sample and α = 0.86 for the death sample. The anger and guilt subscales for the two samples contained different items; therefore, comparisons for these scales was not possible. The grief subscale contained the same questions for each population (retirement and death), allowing for comparison.

The centrality of events scale

The Centrality of Events Scale (CES) (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006) measures the extent to which an event is central to a person's identity and life story. Participants rate seven statements about the centrality of the loss event (e.g., ‘‘This event has become a reference point for the way I understand myself and the world.’’) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). The reported inter-item reliability for the Centrality of Events Scale is α = .88 (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006). The Centrality of Events Scale has demonstrated discriminant validity from other factors related to problematic bereavement, including cause of loss, time since loss, and depression (Boelen, 2009). The internal consistency of the Centrality of Events Scale in the present study was α = 0.91 for retirement and α = 0.90 for death.

Continuing bonds interview

The semi-structured Continuing Bonds Interview (CBI) (N. Field et al., personal communication, 2007) was used to evaluate the degree of ongoing connection participants reported having with their deceased service dog. Continuing Bonds Interview items include: sense of presence; use of belongings; associated places; fond memories; dreams; reunited with deceased; living up to ideals or wishes; everyday decisions; reminisce; memorials; intrusive symptoms; and lessons learned. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they endorsed each of these continuing bonds expressions during the past month on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). If participants endorsed a given item (i.e., a rating of 1 or more), they were asked to describe and rate the extent to which they experienced it as comforting or distressing on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The internal consistency of the Continuing Bonds Interview in the present study was α = 0.85.

The warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale

The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS) (Tennant et al., 2007) is a mental well-being scale that focuses on the positive aspects of mental health. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale is a short and psychometrically robust scale that has been used to assess wellbeing in general populations worldwide (Clarke et al., 2011; Hunter et al., 2015; López et al., 2013; Tennant et al., 2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale is a 5-point Likert scale consisting of 14 items, which range from “none of the time” to “all of the time”. A global score is calculated by adding up item scores, with a possible range of 14 to 70. The higher the global score, the higher the level of mental well-being. Median scores between 48–52 have been reported for students and general populations (Johnson et al., 2017; Tennant et al., 2007) with Cronbach's alpha reported as 0.89 for students and 0.91 for the general population. The internal consistency of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in the present study was α = 0.94 for retirement and 0.95 for death.

The social constraints measure

The Social Constraints Measure (SCS) (Lepore & Ituarte, 1997) is a 15-item scale assessing participants’ perceived inadequacy of social support resulting in a reluctance to express thoughts and feelings about a specific stressor, in this case either the death or retirement of their service dog. Participants were asked to rate how often their friends or family had engaged in or omitted certain social behaviors (e.g., “Not seem to understand your situation?” and “Tell you to try not to think about the event?”) with responses measured on a four-point Likert-type scale (1- never to 4- often). The 15 items are summed to give a total scale score with possible values ranging from 15 (low constraints) to 60 (high constraints). Excellent internal consistency was obtained for this measure in our study (Cronbach's α = 0.95 for retirement and α = 0.96 for death).

The self-compassion scale-short form

The Self-compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF) (Raes et al., 2011) is a 12-item questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale (0 = ‘Almost never’ to 5 = ‘Almost always’) to record how often one behaves kindly and caringly towards him/herself in difficult life situations. Six items are positively worded (e.g. “When something painful happens I try to take a balanced view of the situation”), and the other six are negatively worded (e.g. “When I fail at something that's important to me, I tend to feel alone in my failure”). Overall self-compassion scores were calculated by reverse coding the self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification items then summing all six subscale means. The Self-compassion Scale-Short Form has demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.86). The internal consistency of the Self-compassion Scale-Short Form in the present study was α = 0.94 for retirement and α = 0.88 for death).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions (reported as percentages) were computed by use of IBM SPSS statistical software. Because not all questions were answered by all respondents, the total number of respondents for each question varied. Reported percentages for each individual question are based on total responses for that question. One-way ANOVAs were used to assess loss differences (retirement versus death) on total scores for The Centrality of Events Scale, The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, The Social Constraints Measure, and The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form. Linear regression was conducted on the total bereavement score of retirement and death losses to determine the impact of The Centrality of Events Scale, The Social Constraints Measure, Human-Animal Attachment Measure, The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form, and The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, while controlling for partner and dog factors. Values of P < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

A total of 118 responses were collected, 56 (47.5%) were partners who lost a dog due to retirement and 62 (52.5%) who lost a dog due to death. Of these individuals, 82 (81%) had a service dog to assist with a physical disability and 19 (19%) had a dog to assist with a hearing disability. The sample was predominately highly educated, White, Non-Hispanic females without children under the age of 18 in the home (Table 1). Details about the dogs, including age and date when retired/died (mean age 10.5 years), previous experience with service dog loss (for most, this was the first dog they had lost), if a new service dog had been acquired (most had obtained a new dog) and if so, how much time passed before obtaining a new service dog (typically within a year). Participants who lost a service dog due to retirement were asked to report what happened to the dog upon retirement, to which the majority reported keeping the dog as a pet. Those who lost a service dog due to death were asked about the cause of death, to which most reported a major disease. Additionally, most partners indicated their service dog had been euthanized, and that they had made the decision themselves and were present during the procedure (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic Data on dog Partners and Their Dogs.

Participants
Gender (n = 104)	Female	Male	Nonbinary	NA
	82 (78.8)	21 (20.2)	0	1 (1.0)
Education (n = 104)	High school	College	Graduate school
	18 (17.3)	44 (42.3)	42 (40.4)
Ethnicity (n = 100)	Hispanic/Latino	Not Hispanic/Latino
	4 (4.0)	96 (96.0)
Race (n = 104)	Asian	Black/African American	Hispanic/Latino	White	Other
	2 (1.9)	1 (1.0)	3 (2.9)	89 (85.6)	9 (8.7)
Marital status (n = 104)	Single	Married/partnered	Separated	Divorced	Widowed
	38 (36.5)	53 (51.0)	2 (1.9)	6 (5.8)	5 (4.8)
Number of adults live in house in addition to self (n = 103)	0	1	2	3	4 or more
	13 (12.6)	40 (38.8)	33 (32.0)	10 (9.7)	7 (6.9)
Children under 18 in home (n = 104)	No	Yes
	96 (92.3)	8 (7.7)
Yearly income (n = 94)	Less than 25,000	25,000–49,999	50,000–74,999	75,000–100,000	More than 100,000
	9 (9.6)	18 (19.1)	23 (24.5)	19 (20.2)	25 (26.6)
Dog
Dog age when retired/died (n = 118)	Mean (SD)	Range
	10.5 (2.90)	3–24
When dog retired/died (n = 104)	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015 or earlier
	29 (25.9)	26 (23.2)	24 (21.4)	6 (5.4)	18 (16.1)	9 (8.1)
Retirement
What happened to dog upon retirement (n = 56)	Kept as pet	Rehomed to friend/relative	Returned to organization	Rehomed to puppy raiser	Other
	35 (62.5)	9 (16.1)	4 (7.1)	5 (8.9)	3 (5.4)
Number of dogs retired (including current dog) (n = 56)	1	2	3	4	5
	33 (58.9)	13 (23.2)	5 (8.9)	4 (7.1)	1 (1.8)
Obtained a new dog since retirement (n = 56)	No	Yes	In process
	5 (8.9)	43 (76.8)	8 (14.3)
Time between retirement and new dog (n = 43)	Less than 1 year	At least 1 year but less than 2 years	At least 2 years but less than 2.5 years	2.5 years or more
	33 (76.7)	6 (14.0)	3 (7.0)	1 (2.3)
Death
Cause of death (n = 61)	Natural anticipated loss	Unexpected cause (e.g., accident)	Major disease
	15 (24.6)	7 (11.5)	38 (62.3)
Euthanasia (n = 62)	No	Yes
	7 (11.3)	55 (88.7)
Who made decision to euthanize (could select more than one response) (n = 55)	Self	Partner/spouse	Family	Veterinarian	Service dog organization
	47 (85.5)	16 (29.1)	9(16.4)	26 (47.3)	2 (3.6)
Present at euthanasia (n = 55)	Yes	No
	47 (85.5)	8 (14.5)
Number of dogs died (including current dog) (n = 62)	1	2	3	4	5
	40 (64.5)	14 (22.6)	6 (9.7)	2 (3.2)
Obtained a new dog since death (n = 62)	No	Yes	In process
	10 (16.1)	44 (71.0)	8 (12.9)
Time between death and new dog (n = 43)	Less than 1 year	At least 1 year but less than 2 years	At least 2 years but less than 2.5 years	2.5 years or more
	38 (88.4)	5 (11.7)	0	0

Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach's alphas for Human-Animal Attachment Measure subscales (Proximity seeking, Secure base, Safe haven), The Centrality of Events Scale, The Social Constraints Measure, The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form, and The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale were computed and are summarized in Table 2. There were no differences between those who lost a service dog due to death versus retirement for any of these measurements.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach's Alphas, and ANOVA Values for Retirement and Death Conditions for the Scales: The Human-Animal Attachment Measure Subscales, Centrality of Events Scale, Self-Compassion Scale, Social Constraints Measure, and Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale.

	Retirement		Death
	Mean (SD)	α	Mean (SD)	α	ANOVA*
The Human-Animal Attachment Measure (HAAM)
Proximity seeking	3.07 (.70)	.88	2.94 (.68)	.93	F (1,116) = 1.05, p = .308
Secure base	3.53 (.45)	.69	3.44 (.45)	.88	F (1,116) = 1.21, p = .273
Safe haven	3.65 (.64)	.86	3.61 (.50)	.83	F (1,116) = 1.44, p = .705
Centrality of Events Scale (CES)	19.21 (7.91)	.91	20.58 (8.18)	.90	F (1,113) = 1.00, p = .319
Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-SF)	39.77 (5.86)	.94	41.11 (9.86)	.88	F (1,97) = 0.607, p = .438
Social Constraints Measure (SCS)	20.94 (9.45)	.95	22.72 (10.3)	.96	F (1,114) = 0.460, p = .499
	Median (quartiles)	α	Median (quartiles)	α
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS)	54.5 (45.25; 54.5; 59.0)	.94	53.0 (45.0, 53.0, 57.0)	.95	F (1,107) = 0.008, p = .929

* No significant differences between death and retirement conditions for any scales.

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha and the specific questions included in the Retirement and Death surveys for each of The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire subscales are reported in Table 3. There was a significant difference in the grief subscale between death and retirement loss (t (1, 112) = -2.403, P = .018). Because the other two scales were modified to reflect the different samples (retirement and death), this was the only subscale compared between the two groups. Responses for each question comprising The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire grief subscale by partners who had lost a dog due to retirement or death are reported and compared in Table 4. Partners who lost a dog due to retirement were more likely to disagree with the statements “I miss my service dog enormously (t = 2.77, P = 0.006); I cry when I think about my service dog (t = 6.44, P <0.001; and I am very sad about the loss of my service dog (t = 4.48, P <0.001).

Table 3.

The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire – Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach's Alphas for Each Subscale and Question Items Included in the Retirement and Death Surveys.

	Retirement	Death
Grief	α = 0.86Mean (1.22, SD = .55)	α = 0.76Mean (1.40, SD = .53)
I am very upset about the loss of my service dog (in its role as a service dog)	x	x
My life feels empty without my service dog	x	x
I feel lonely without my service dog	x	x
I miss my service dog enormously	x	x
I cry when I think about my service dog	x	x
I am very sad about the loss of my service dog	x	x
I’ll never get over the loss of my service dog	x	x
I am very upset about the loss of my independence due to my service dog’s retirement	x	x
Anger	α = 0.85 Mean (1.64, SD = .70)	α = 0.76 Mean (1.40, SD = .53)
I feel angry at the veterinarian for recommending that my dog needed to retire	x
I feel angry at the veterinarian for not being able to save my dog		x
I feel angry at [agency] for recommending that my dog needed to retire	x
I feel angry at [agency] for not being able to save my dog		x
I am angry at other people for contributing to the death of my service dog		x
I am angry at my friends/family for not being more helpful		x
I have had nightmares about my service dog’s death		x
Memories of my service dog’s last moments haunt me		x
Guilt	α = 0.71 Mean (1.48, SD = .73)	α = 0.80 Mean (1.56, SD = .69)
I feel very guilty about my service dog’s quality of life after retirement	x
I feel bad that I didn’t do more to prevent my service dog from needing to retire	x
I should have known that something bad could have happened to my service dog		x
I feel very guilty for not taking better care of my service dog		x
I feel bad that I didn’t do more to save my service dog		x
I wish I had shown my service dog more love		x

Table 4.

The PBQ Grief Subscale: Comparison of Participants who Lost a dog From Death with Those who Lost a dog due to Retirement.

	Strongly disagree		Disagree		Agree		Strongly agree		t-test
	Retirement	Death	Retirement	Death	Retirement	Death	Retirement	Death
I am very upset about the loss of my service dog (in its role as an service dog) Retirement n = 52 Death n = 64	20 (38.5%)	21 (32.8)	13 (25.0)	12 (18.8)	14 (26.9)	20 (31.3)	5 (9.6)	11 (17.2)	t (1, 114) = -1.25 p = .213
My life feels empty without my service dog Retirement n = 52 Death n = 64	16 (30.8)	10 (15.6)	14 (26.9)	19 (29.7)	10 (19.2)	24 (37.5)	12 (23.1)	11 (17.2)	t (1, 114) = -1.083 p = .281
I feel lonely without my service dog Retirement n = 51 Death n = 64	11 (21.6)	12 (18.8)	11 (21.6)	16 (25.0)	20 (39.2)	26 (40.6)	9 (17.6)	10 (15.6)	t (1, 113) = −.010 p = .992
I miss my service dog enormously Retirement n = 52 Death n = 64	8 (15.4)	3 (4.7)	8 (15.4)	6 (9.4)	18 (34.6)	19 (29.7)	18 (34.6)	36 (56.3)	t (1, 114) = -2.773 p = .006
I cry when I think about my service dog Retirement n = 52 Death n = 63	16 (30.8)	11 (17.5)	15 (28.8)	10 (15.9)	13 (25.0)	26 (41.3)	8 (15.4)	16 (25.4)	t (1, 114) = -6.437 p <.001
I am very sad about the loss of my service dog Retirement n = 51 Death n = 64	14 (27.5)	5 (7.8)	10 (19.6)	5 (7.8)	18 (35.3)	22 (34.4)	9 (17.6)	32 (50.0)	t (1, 113) = -4.484 p <.001
I’ll never get over the loss of my service dog Retirement n = 52 Death n = 64	22 (42.3)	21 (32.8)	19 (36.5)	17 (26.6)	7 (13.5)	16 (25.0)	4 (7.7)	10 (15.6)	t (1, 114) = -1.946 p = .054
I am very upset about the loss of my independence due to my service dog's retirement Retirement n = 50 Death n = 63	24 (48.0)	29 (46.0)	12 (24.0)	18 (28.6)	10 (20.0)	11 (17.5)	4 (8.0)	5 (7.9)	t (1, 110) = −.132 p = .895

The number and percent of participants who endorsed each item of The Continuing Bonds Interview items, means and standard deviations for the potential resulting impact of comfort and distress, and Pearson's correlation with The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire grief subscale are summarized in Table 5. The Continuing Bonds Interview items that correlated with The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire grief subscale included: Focus on fond memories of deceased dog (0.38, P = 0.002); Organized or attended special events in commemoration of deceased dog (0.27, P = 0.032); Drawn to places associated with deceased dog (0.28, P = 0.026); and Make everyday decisions and choices based on what deceased dog liked (0.318, P = 0.012).

Table 5.

The Continuing Bonds Interview: Number of Participants who Endorsed Each Item, Means and Standard Deviations for Results of Comfort and Distress, and Pearson's Correlation with The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire (PBQ) Grief Subscale.

	Number/percent for at least sometimes/often	Pearson's correlation with PBQ (grief-subscale)	Comfort mean (1 = not at all, 4 = often)	Distress mean (1 = not at all, 4 = often)
Have a sense of your dog's presence	33/64 = 51.5%	0.225 p = .074	2.60 (1.13)	2.20 (.45)
Experiences that involved actually seeing, hearing, or touching your dog	8/64 = 12.5%	0.066 p = .605	2.50 (1.15)	1.25 (.46)
Talking to your dog	25/62 = 40.3%	0.172 p = .182	2.39 (1.24)	1.25 (.46)
Sounds or physical sensations felt to be your dog's footsteps, vocalizations, movements	25/62 = 40.3%	0.139 p = .282	2.00 (1.13)	1.50 (.61)
Dreams involving your dog	31/62 = 50%	0.203 p = .114	2.35 (1.17)	2.13 (1.09)
Focus on fond memories of your dog	61/62 = 98.4%	0.378 p = .002	2.90 (.84)	1.56 (1.01)
Held onto special belongings of your dog	49/62 = 79.0%	0.241 p = .059	2.58 (1.03)	1.53 (.74)
Organized or attended special events in commemoration of your dog	25/62 = 40.3%	0.272 p = .032	2.55 (1.0)	2.08 (.69)
Drawn to places associated with your dog	21/62 = 33.9%	0.282 p = .026	2.49 (1.10)	1.80 (.63)
Make everyday decisions and choices based on what your dog liked	8/62 = 12.9%	0.318 p = .012	2.29 (1.16)	1.50 (.76)
Thoughts about being reunited with your dog in the future	37/61 = 60.7%	0.156 p = .231	2.80 (1.14)	2.00 (1.4)
Learned from the example set by your dog	36/61 = 59.0%	0.093 p = .478	2.40 (1.14)	1.64 (1.03)
Attempting to carry out your dog's wishes	14/61 = 23.0%	0.238 p = .064	2.45 (1.23)	1.50 (1.0)
Reminisced with others about your dog	58/61 = 95.1%	0.206 p = .064	2.97 (.91)	1.92 (1.0)

Linear regression was conducted on the total bereavement score, as measured by The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire, of the retirement sample to determine the impact of The Centrality of Events Scale, The Social Constraints Measure, The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form, Human-Animal Attachment Measure, and The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, while controlling for what happened to the dog upon retirement (kept as pet or did not keep), how long ago the dog retired (within last two years or longer), number of retired dogs (1 or more than 1), and partner demographics (sex, relationship status). The multiple regression model predicting total bereavement score for partners whose dogs had retired was significant (F10 = 3.55, P = 0.003), with an R² of 0.526. Significant predictors of bereavement included The Centrality of Events Scale (B = .031; p = 0.034) and The Social Constraints Measure (B = −.027; P = 0.21). Complete results for the regression analysis are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Results of the Multiple Linear Regression Model Predicting Bereavement due to Retirement as a Function of Partner and Household Factors.

ANOVA
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Squares	F	Sig.
Regression Residual Total	8.37 7.54 15.91	10 32 42	.837 .236	3.553	0.003
Coefficients* (Dependent Variable: bereavement)
Variable			Coefficient (B)	Std. Error	t	Sig.
(Constant)			−.297	1.154	−.258	.798
The Centrality of Events Scale – CES			.031	.014	2.210	.034*
The Social Constraints Measure - SCS			.027	.011	2.423	.021*
The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form - SCS-SF			−.024	.204	−.119	.906
The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale – WEMWBS			.011	.150	.071	.944
Human-Animal Attachment Measure – HAAM			.265	.193	1.369	.181
Sex (partner)			.064	.224	.285	.778
Happened to dog upon retirement			.102	.177	.577	.568
Relationship status			−.193	.169	−1.140	.263
How long since retirement			−.017	.173	−.098	.922
Number of retired dogs			.214	.169	1.268	.214

* Significant Predictors Are Shown in Bold.

Linear regression was also conducted on the total bereavement score, as measured by The Pet Bereavement Questionnaire, of the death sample to determine the impact of The Centrality of Events Scale, The Social Constraints Measure, The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form, Human-Animal Attachment Measure, and The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, while controlling for how long ago the service dog died (within last two years or longer), number of service dogs that had died (1 or more than 1), and partner demographics (sex, relationship status). The multiple regression model predicting total bereavement score for partners whose dogs had died was significant (F9 = 5.005, P < 0.001), with an R² of 0.479. The only significant predictor of bereavement was The Centrality of Events Scale (B = .475; P = .001). Complete results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7.

Results of the Multiple Linear Regression Model Predicting Bereavement due to Death as a Function of Partner and Household Factors.

ANOVA
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Squares	F	Sig.
Regression Residual Total	2094.55 2278.67 4373.22	9 49 58	232.73 46.50	5.005	<0.001
Coefficients* (Dependent Variable: bereavement)
Variable			Coefficient (B)	Std. Error	t	Sig.
(Constant)			23.291	12.088	1.927	.060
The Centrality of Events Scale – CES			.475	.130	3.650	.001
The Social Constraints Measure - SCS			.134	.110	1.223	.227
The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form - SCS-SF			−2.437	1.695	−1.438	.157
The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale – WEMWBS			−.022	.145	−.152	.880
Human-Animal Attachment Measure - HAAM			1.974	2.030	.973	.336
Sex (partner)			1.010	2.067	.489	.627
Relationship status			.155	1.849	.084	.933
How long since retirement			−1.262	1.839	−.686	.496
Number of retired dogs			1.587	2.059	.771	.445

* Significant Predictors Are Shown in Bold.

Discussion

This study was designed to better understand how service dog partners experience the loss of their service dog through either death or retirement. When assessing overall grief, as measured by the Total Bereavement Scale, we found higher grief scores for those whose service dog died compared to those whose dog retired. For all participants, however, these grief scores were comparable to other pet loss studies (Behler et al., 2020). So, while the nuances of the types of losses associated with service dog retirement and death may be different than pet loss, the magnitude of grief appears similar. Perceptions of social constraints and feelings related to the centrality of the event were both predictors of overall grief for those who lost a dog due to retirement, while only centrality of event feelings predicted reported grief level for those experiencing a death. It is of interest to note, however, the non-significant predictors of grief including bond level, mental health, and self-compassion. These results are helpful in guiding the development and enhancement of supportive services for grieving service dog partners.

The importance of social connections during times of loss has been documented in studies pertaining to both animal and human loss (Bellet et al., 2018; Bussolari et al., 2018; Habarth et al., 2017). Retirement is not a common type of loss and therefore, perhaps less understood by others, and as a result, may be more difficult to discuss. Partners may not have the same social support needed when their service dog retires as compared to those whose service dog has died. It is suggested that service dog organizations, given their intimate knowledge of the impact of this type of loss, are in a unique position to be able to offer proactive support services to partners before, during and after a dog retires.

With respect to event centrality, for both the retirement and death sample, the level to which these individuals created meaning around the loss appears to predict the extent of their grief. Similar findings have been reported in studies pertaining to human loss (Bellet et al., 2018; Boelen & Prigerson, 2012; Rozalski et al., 2016). Centrality of event, the degree to which the memory of a traumatic life event forms a turning point in one's life-story and becomes a central component of a one's identity (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006) has been associated with heightened levels of distress rumination and negative thoughts following a loss (Boelen, 2009). This appears especially true when someone has been unable to create a meaningful narrative around the loss (Bauer & Park, 2010; Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006; Neimeyer et al., 2006). People desire to create meaning of negative events and as such, this coping strategy is a major component of healthy bereavement (Neimeyer, 2016). When someone is unable to effectively make meaning of a loss, that event's centrality in the individual's life narrative can adversely affect bereavement. Yet, the creation of adaptive meaning making can actually serve as a buffer against the effect of the loss's centrality (Bellet et al., 2018).

Given the nature of service dogs and the need for frequent and rapid replacement, and the potential lack of opportunity for resolution, it is likely that many partners are not able to take the time needed to effectively make meaning of the loss. Offering grieving partners other types of temporary support besides a service dog to help with daily activities might be one option to help give these partners the time they need to work through their loss before acquiring a new dog. The use of narrative constructivist therapy may be of benefit during this time of transition. Directed journaling (Lichtenthal & Neimeyer, 2012) or the creation of epitaphs or life imprints, in which people reflect on the imprint the lost dog has had on their lives, are examples of this type of supportive therapy (Neimeyer, 1999).

In the current study we also investigated the continuing bonds strategies employed by partners of a deceased dog to garner more information regarding the use of these types of coping strategies. Bereaved partners reported using a wide range of continuing bonds strategies. Similar to previous studies (Bussolari et al., 2018; Habarth et al., 2017), the top three endorsed continuing bonds expressions in terms of frequency were fond memories, reminiscing, and use of deceased pet's belongings for comfort. In addition, grief level was significantly correlated with “focus on fond memories of the deceased dog”, “organized or attended special events in commemoration of deceased dog” and “make everyday decisions and choices based on what deceased dog liked” suggesting that these coping strategies are ones utilized by service dog partners with higher levels of grief. Furthermore, as seen in previous studies (Habarth et al., 2017; Packman et al., 2011), there was an overall tendency to experience continuing bonds as more comforting than distressing.

These findings have meaningful clinical implications for bereaved service dog partners. Our results confirm that individuals engage in continuing bonds following the death of their service animal. Yet, the development, use, and value of continuing bonds experiences are unique and individual. While some people adopt several forms of continuing bonds immediately upon death, others may develop them later, or not at all. Additionally, it should be noted that continuing bonds experiences often change over time. Importantly, it is not whether a person experiences continuing bonds that is most critical, but rather the degree of comfort or distress that is experienced from a particular kind of connection.

Conclusions and Future Research

These results suggest there is a need for additional psychoeducational materials and grief support for service dog partners that portray potential pre-loss and bereavement experiences. The inclusion of direct quotes and personal stories portraying the lived experiences of those who have lost their service dog partners, along with educational materials, may work in concert to promote feelings of universality, normalize the often ambiguous and disenfranchised service dog partners’ grief experiences, and offer guidance regarding the grieving process. Of importance, due to the increased risk of disenfranchised loss, those suffering a loss due to retirement may need additional, specifically tailored support.

This study has several limitations that should be noted. Because data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, results may differ if conducted during another, less stressful time. Additionally, service dog partners were only assessed one time, thus, it is suggested that future research could use a longitudinal, repeated measures research design. The sample was also limited to CCI partners with mobility issues or those with hearing impairments and therefore caution is suggested when generalizing to other types of service dog partnerships. It would be of value to conduct similar research with other types of service dogs (e.g., guide dogs for the blind; psychiatric service dogs; seizure alert dogs, etc.) to investigate if the same patterns and relationships exist given the specific service partners’ needs. Lastly, it would be helpful to evaluate the impact of supportive services created and implemented as a result of this study.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the service dog partners who participated in this study and Canine Companions for Independence.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Lori R. Kogan

Author Biographies

Lori Kogan, PhD is a Psychologist and Professor of Clinical Sciences at Colorado State University. She has published numerous journal articles and book chapters, and books on topics related to human animal interactions in both psychology and veterinary medicine venues.

Wendy Packman, PhD, JD is a Professor Emerita of Psychology, Palo Alto University. Dr. Packman has studied, presented and written extensively on sibling bereavement and continuing bonds, the impact of a child's death on parents, and the psychological aspects of pet loss.

Jennifer Currin-McCulloch, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at Colorado State University. She studies factors that promote resilience among those living with serious and life-limiting illness.

Cori Bussolari, PsyD is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology at the University of San Francisco and a licensed psychologist. Her research is in the area of pet loss, the human animal bond and positive coping.

Phyllis Erdman, Ph.D. is a licensed mental health counselor and Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the college of Education at Washington State University. Dr. Erdman's research includes studying various aspects of the human animal bond.

References

Bauer

J. J.

Park

S. W.

(2010). Growth is not just for the young: Growth narratives, eudaimonic resilience, and the aging self. In New frontiers in resilient aging: Life-strengths and well-being in late life (pp. 60–89). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763151.004.

Behler

A. M.

Green

Joy-Gaba

(2020). We lost a member of the family. Predictors of the grief experience surrounding the loss of a pet. Human Animal Interaction Bulletin, 8(3), 54–70.

Bellet

B. W.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Berman

J. S.

(2018). Event centrality and bereavement symptomatology: The moderating role of meaning made. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 78(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222816679659.

Berntsen

Rubin

D. C.

(2006). The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into One's Identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.01.009.

Boelen

P. A.

(2009). The centrality of a loss and its role in emotional problems among bereaved people. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(7), 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.03.009.

Boelen

P. A.

Prigerson

H. G.

(2012). Commentary on the inclusion of persistent complex bereavement-related disorder in DSM-5. Death Studies, 36(9), 771–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.706982.

Boss

(2000). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief (1st edition). Harvard University Press.

Bureau

U. C.

(n.d.). Americans with Disabilities: 2014. The United States Census Bureau. Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p70-152.html (Accessed 6/2/21).

Bussolari

Habarth

J. M.

Phillips

Katz

Packman

(2021). Self-Compassion, social constraints, and psychosocial outcomes in a Pet bereavement sample. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 82(3), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222818814050.

10.

Bussolari

C. J.

Habarth

Katz

Phillips

Carmack

Packman

(2018). The euthanasia decision-making process: A qualitative exploration of bereaved companion animal owners. Bereavement Care, 37(3), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2018.1542571.

11.

Chur-Hansen

(2010). Grief and bereavement issues and the loss of a companion animal: People living with a companion animal, owners of livestock, and animal support workers. Clinical Psychologist, 14(1), 14–21. 10.1080/13284201003662800.

12.

Clarke

Friede

Putz

Ashdown

Martin

Blake

Adi

Parkinson

Flynn

Platt

Stewart-Brown

(2011). Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Validated for teenage school students in england and scotland. A mixed methods assessment. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 487. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-487.

13.

Eckerd

L. M.

Barnett

J. E.

Jett-Dias

(2016). Grief following pet and human loss: Closeness is key. Death Studies, 40(5), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2016.1139014.

14.

Field

N. P.

Gao

Paderna

(2005). Continuing bonds in bereavement: An attachment theory based perspective. Death Studies, 29(4), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180590923689.

15.

Field

N. P.

Orsini

Gavish

Packman

(2009). Role of attachment in response to pet loss. Death Studies, 33(4), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180802705783.

16.

Fong

Loi

N. M.

(2016). The mediating role of self-compassion in student psychological health. Australian Psychologist, 51(6), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12185.

17.

Gilbert

(2014). The origins and nature of compassion focused therapy. The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 6–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12043.

18.

Gillies

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2006). Loss, grief, and the search for significance: Toward a model of meaning reconstruction in bereavement. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 19(1), 31–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530500311182.

19.

Gravrok

Howell

Bendrups

Bennett

(2020). Thriving through relationships: Assistance dogs’ and companion dogs’ perceived ability to contribute to thriving in individuals with and without a disability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1513574.

20.

Habarth

Bussolari

Gomez

Carmack

B. J.

Ronen

Field

N. P.

Packman

(2017). Continuing bonds and psychosocial functioning in a recently bereaved Pet loss sample. Anthrozoös, 30(4), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1370242.

21.

Hart

L. A.

Hart

B. L.

Bergin

B. L.

(1987). Socializing effects of service dogs for people with disabilities. Anthrozoös, 1(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058696.

22.

Herlache-Pretzer

Winkle

M. Y.

Csatari

Kolanowski

Londry

Dawson

(2017). The impact of service dogs on engagement in occupation among females with mobility impairments: A qualitative descriptive study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6), E649. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060649.

23.

Hunt

Padilla

(2006). Development of the Pet bereavement questionnaire. Anthrozoös, 19(4), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415493.

24.

Hunter

Houghton

Wood

(2015). Positive mental well-being in Australian adolescents: Evaluating the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 32(2), 93–104. 10.1017/edp.2015.12.

25.

Jacobson

N. C.

Lord

K. A.

Newman

M. G.

(2017). Perceived emotional social support in bereaved spouses mediates the relationship between anxiety and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 211, 83–91. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.011.

26.

Johnson

Robertson

Towey

Stewart-Brown

Clarke

(2017). Changes over time in mental well-being, fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity in a community-based lifestyle intervention: A before and after study. Public Health, 146, 118–125. 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.01.012.

27.

Juth

Smyth

J. M.

Carey

M. P.

Lepore

S. J.

(2015). Social constraints are associated with negative psychological and physical adjustment in bereavement. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 7(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12041.

28.

Klass

Silverman

P. R.

Nickman

(1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief (1st edition). Taylor & Francis.

29.

Lane

D. R.

McNicholas

Collis

G. M.

(1998). Dogs for the disabled: Benefits to recipients and welfare of the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 59(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00120-8.

30.

Leary

M. R.

Tate

E. B.

Adams

C. E.

Batts Allen

Hancock

(2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 887–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887.

31.

Lenferink

L. I. M.

Eisma

M. C.

de Keijser

Boelen

P. A.

(2017). Grief rumination mediates the association between self-compassion and psychopathology in relatives of missing persons. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 8(sup6), 1378052. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2017.1378052.

32.

Lepore

S. J.

Ituarte

P. H. G.

(1997). Optimism about canver enhances mood by reducing negative social relations. Cancer Therapy, Reseach and Control, 8, 165–174. 10.1002/pon.1461

33.

Lepore

S. J.

Revenson

T. A.

(2007). Social constraints on disclosure and adjustment to cancer. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00013.x.

34.

Lichtenthal

W. G.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2012). Directed journaling to facilitate meaning-making. In Techniques of grief therapy (pp. 165–168). Routledge.

35.

López

M. A.

Gabilondo

Codony

García-Forero

Vilagut

Castellví

Ferrer

Alonso

(2013). Adaptation into spanish of the warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) and preliminary validation in a student sample. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 22(5), 1099–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0238-z.

36.

Muris

Petrocchi

(2017). Protection or vulnerability? A meta-analysis of the relations between the positive and negative components of self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(2), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2005.

37.

Neff

K. D.

(2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027.

38.

Neff

K. D.

(2009). The role of self-compassion in development: A healthier Way to relate to oneself. Human Development, 52(4), 211–214. https://doi.org/10.1159/000215071.

39.

Neff

K. D.

Kirkpatrick

K. L.

Rude

S. S.

(2007). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004.

40.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(1999). Narrative strategies in grief therapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 12(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/107205399266226.

41.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2016). Meaning reconstruction in the wake of loss: Evolution of a research program. Behaviour Change, 33(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2016.4.

42.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Baldwin

S. A.

Gillies

(2006). Continuing bonds and reconstructing meaning: Mitigating complications in bereavement. Death Studies, 30(8), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180600848322.

43.

Fine

(2019). Paving the path toward retirement for assistance animals: Transitioning lives. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 39. 10.3389/fvets.2019.00039.

44.

Packman

Field

N. P.

Carmack

B. J.

Ronen

(2011). Continuing bonds and psychosocial adjustment in pet loss. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 16(4), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2011.572046.

45.

PhD

K. J. D.

(1999). Disenfranchised grief. Bereavement Care, 18(3), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682629908657467.

46.

Raes

Pommier

Neff

K. D.

Van Gucht

(2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702.

47.

Rintala

D. H.

Matamoros

Seitz

L. L.

(2008). Effects of assistance dogs on persons with mobility or hearing impairments: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(4), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2007.06.0094.

48.

Rodriguez

Bibbo

Verdon

O’Haire

(2020). Mobility and medical service dogs: A qualitative analysis of expectations and experiences. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 15(5), 499–509. 10.1080/17483107.2019.1587015.

49.

Rozalski

Holland

Neimeyer

(2016). Circumstances of death and complicated grief: Indirect associations through meaning made of loss. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22(1), 11–23. 10.1080/15325024.2016.1161426.

50.

Sanders

C. R.

(2000). The impact of guide dogs on the identity of people with visual impairments. Anthrozoös, 13(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279300786999815.

51.

Stewart

(2006). Investigating the relationship between assistance dogs and their owners with physical disabilities: Complex affection or simple attachment? [Thesis, Faculty of Education - Simon Fraser University]. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/2305

52.

Tennant

Hiller

Fishwick

Platt

Joseph

Weich

Parkinson

Secker

Stewart-Brown

(2007). The warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS): Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.

53.

US Department of Justice (2021). ADA 2010 Revised Requirements: Service Animals. https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm.

54.

Walther

Yamamoto

Thigpen

A. P.

Garcia

Willits

N. H.

Hart

L. A.

(2017). Assistance dogs: Historic patterns and roles of dogs placed by ADI or IGDF accredited facilities and by Non-accredited U. S. Facilities. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4(1), 1. 10.3389/fvets.2017.00001.

55.

Wenthold

Savage

T. A.

(2007). Ethical issues with service animals. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 14(2), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1310/tsr1402-68.

56.

Whelan

(2017). The complexities of guide dog partnerships: Why some go wrong and the impact of a failed relationship on the owner [Thesis (University of Nottingham only), University of Nottingham]. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/41785/.

57.

Wiggett-Barnard

Steel

(2008). The experience of owning a guide dog. Disability and Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(14), 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280701466517.

58.

Winkle

Crowe

T. K.

Hendrix

(2012). Service dogs and people with physical disabilities partnerships: A systematic review. Occupational Therapy International, 19(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.323.

59.

Wrobel

T. A.

Dye

A. L.

(2003). Grieving Pet death: Normative, gender, and attachment issues. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 47(4), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.2190/QYV5-LLJ1-T043-U0F9.

60.

Yamamoto

Hart

L. A.

(2019). Separation from service dogs. In Kogan

Erdman

(Eds.), Pet loss, grief, and therapeutic interventions: Practitioners navigating the human-animal Bond. (pp. 108–208). New York: Routledge.

The Loss of a Service Dog Through Death or Retirement: Experiences and Impact on Partners

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Service Dogs

Relationship Between Service Dog and Partner

Service Dog Partners’ Grief Response

Centrality of Events

Social Constraints

Continuing Bonds

Self-Compassion

Materials and Methods

Survey Instruments

The human-animal attachment measure

The Pet bereavement questionnaire

The centrality of events scale

Continuing bonds interview

The warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale

The social constraints measure

The self-compassion scale-short form

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions and Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Interest

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References