Cited by 4Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction Studies

Handling techniques and risk factors reported by veterinary professionals during dog examinations: a cross-sectional survey across Canada and the United States

Open access
Nakonechny, Lindsay, Cisneros, Alissa, Moody, Carly M, Stellato, Anastasia Chiara·2025·Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract

Introduction: Handling techniques are known to influence dog stress in veterinary settings; however, little is known about the current handling techniques applied to dogs during routine veterinary care or risk factors associated with their use. This cross-sectional survey aimed to assess common handling techniques used on calm, fearful, and aggressive dogs by veterinary professionals in Canada and the United States and identify risk factors for minimal and full-body restraint. Methods: A convenience sample of veterinary professionals completed an online questionnaire. It collected information on participant characteristics and clinic experience (e.g., gender, Ten Item Personality Index, bite history, stress-reducing certification), participant professional quality of life (using the ProQOL scale), general examination practices (e.g., use of treats), perceptions and importance of examination factors (e.g., staff safety), and frequency of using 14 different dog handling techniques. Logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for the use of minimal and full-body restraint on fearful and aggressive dogs. Results: Participants ( N = 691) were veterinarians (39.2%, 271/691) and non-veterinarians (60.8%, 420/691), who routinely handle dogs during routine examinations in Canada (21.7%, 150/691) and the United States (79.1%, 541/691). Minimal restraint was reported to be used for calm (82.7%, 566/684), fearful (73.1%, 499/683), and aggressive (51.9%, 352/678) dogs during routine examinations. Full-body restraint was commonly reported to be used for calm dogs (58.5%, 400/684) and most frequently reported for fearful (63.9%, 434/679) and aggressive dogs (68.6%, 465/678). Handling decisions were influenced by factors including age, gender, practice type, graduation year, bite history, stress-reducing certification, and owner presence. Professionals prioritizing staff safety and using stress-reducing strategies (e.g., treats) were more likely to use minimal restraint, while owner presence and focus on examination completeness were linked to full-body restraint. Personality traits and professional well-being, particularly extraversion and secondary traumatic stress, also influenced handling choices. Discussion: Handling techniques vary with dog behavior and are shaped by numerous factors, highlighting the complex relationship between personal and clinic-level influences on veterinary staff interactions with dog patients. These findings generate hypotheses for future observational research exploring factors that support stress-reducing techniques to improve dog welfare in clinical settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fvets.2025.1634970

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Excessive arousal can impact the quality of care dogs receive; handlers may respond to aroused or difficult-to-handle dogs with more restrictive, forceful handling and fewer positive interactions.

    “Excessive arousal can also impact the quality of care dogs receive; to maintain control and safety during husbandry tasks (e.g., moving animals), handlers may respond to aroused or difficult-to-handle dogs with more restrictive, forceful handling and fewer positive interactions (20).”

    From Combined enrichment and pharmaceutical intervention reduces excessive arousal in shelter dogs in a randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results (Dog-handling practices; page not supplied) report that aggressive dogs were more often handled with secure or full-body restraint, and that some staff increased restraint when a dog struggled. The paper concerns veterinary examinations, not moving dogs during husbandry tasks, and the retrieved passages do not show that handlers have fewer positive interactions with aroused dogs. Most respondents said they released restraint when a dog struggled. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]Landsberg GM Hunthausen W Ackerman L. Handbook of behavior problems of the dog and cat. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier Health Sciences (2003).
  2. [47]Gottfried J. Practices in data-quality evaluation: a large-scale review of online survey studies published in 2022. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. (2024) 7, 1–7. doi: 10.1177/2515245924123641 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakonechny, L., Cisneros, A., Moody, C. M., & Stellato, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Stellato, Anastasia Chiara
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Published
2025-08-18
Volume
12
Pages
1634970-1634970
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413283874
Cited by
3
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ThinkTech (Texas Tech University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Veterinary Practice and Education Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
Keywords
canine aggression, canine fear, veterinary professionals, staff safety, secondary traumatic stress, professional quality of life, extraversion, Canada, United States, cross-cultural comparison, human-animal interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review