Department of Population Health Sciences, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 10;18(2):513. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020513.
(1) Background People with disabilities may benefit from an assistance dog (AD). Despite regulations that prohibit the denial of ADs to public places, this still occurs on a regular basis. The main argument for denial of access is that dogs compromise hygiene with their presence, which could cause a health hazard. Meanwhile, people are allowed to walk into and out of public places freely. (2) Objective: As a pilot study, to investigate the number of Enterobacteriaceae and the presence of bacteria on the paws of ADs and pet dogs (PDs) as well as the shoe soles of their users and owners. With the results, an assessment can be made as to whether measures are required to reduce environmental contamination (e.g., in hospitals). (3) Methods In total, 25 ADs, 25 PDs, and their 50 users/owners participated in the study. Each participant walked their dog for 15-30 min prior to the sampling of the front paws Each PD owner or AD user filled out a general questionnaire about the care of their dogs, and AD users were asked to fill out an additional questionnaire on their experiences regarding the admittance of their ADs to public places (in particular, hospitals). Dutch hospitals were questioned on their protocols regarding the admittance of ADs and their visitor numbers, including the percentage of AD users, to put these numbers into perspective. (4) Results Dog paws were more often negative for Enterobacteriaceae compared to shoe soles (72% and 42%, respectively) and also had significantly lower bacterial counts (mean of 3.54log and 5.03log colony-forming units (CFUs), respectively; < 0.05). This was most distinct in the comparison between PDs and their owners (3.75log and 5.25log CFUs; < 0.05); the numbers were similar between ADs and their users (3.09log and 4.58log CFUs; = 0.2). was found on one (4%) AD user's shoe soles. Moreover, 81% of AD users had been denied access with their current AD once or several times, the main reason being hygiene. The results of the visibly and invisibly disabled were significantly different. The number of AD users as opposed to the total number of hospital visitors was 0.03% in one hospital and is estimated to be 0.02% in the Netherlands. (5) Conclusions The general hygiene of dogs' paws is far better than that of shoe soles, mostly demonstrated by the better general hygiene of PD paws compared with their owners' shoe soles; ADs and their users had comparable levels of general hygiene. In addition, the number of AD users amongst the total number of hospital visitors in the Netherlands is very limited. Thus, hygiene measures to reduce any contamination due to dog paws do not seem necessary.
（1）背景：残疾人可能受益于辅助犬（AD）。尽管有规定禁止将 AD 拒之门外公共场所，但这种情况仍经常发生。拒绝进入的主要理由是狗的存在会影响卫生，这可能会造成健康危害。同时，人们可以自由进出公共场所。（2）目的：作为一项试点研究，调查 AD 和宠物狗（PD）的爪子以及它们的使用者和主人的鞋底上肠杆菌科的数量和细菌的存在。根据研究结果，可以评估是否需要采取措施减少环境污染（例如在医院）。（3）方法：共有 25 只 AD、25 只 PD 及其 50 名使用者/主人参加了这项研究。每位参与者在采样前先让他们的狗在前爪上行走 15-30 分钟。每只 PD 主人或 AD 用户填写一份关于他们的狗的护理一般问卷，AD 用户被要求填写一份关于他们的 AD 进入公共场所（特别是医院）的经历的附加问卷。荷兰的医院被问及他们关于 AD 准入及其访客人数的协议，包括 AD 用户的百分比，以便将这些数字置于适当的背景下。（4）结果：与鞋底相比，狗的爪子更容易检测到肠杆菌科（分别为 72%和 42%），细菌数量也明显较低（平均菌落形成单位（CFU）分别为 3.54log 和 5.03log；<0.05）。这在 PD 及其主人之间的比较中最为明显（3.75log 和 5.25log CFU；<0.05）；AD 及其使用者之间的数量相似（3.09log 和 4.58log CFU；=0.2）。在一个（4%）AD 用户的鞋底上发现了一种。此外，81%的 AD 用户曾因卫生问题一次或多次被拒绝进入，主要原因是卫生。视力和非视力障碍者的结果有显著差异。荷兰一家医院 AD 用户的数量与医院访客的总数相比为 0.03%，估计为 0.02%。（5）结论：狗爪子的总体卫生状况远优于鞋底，这主要表现为 PD 爪子的总体卫生状况明显优于其主人的鞋底；AD 及其使用者的总体卫生状况相当。此外，荷兰医院访客总数中 AD 用户的数量非常有限。因此，似乎没有必要采取减少因狗爪子而造成的任何污染的卫生措施。
