|
I read the article "Ruby Goes to School" (September 23) with much anticipation. As Ms. Lewis points out, the evidence supporting the use of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) in communication rehabilitation is indeed sparse. However, the reasons that she reports are not entirely accurate.
We have been investigating AAT and rehabilitation by utilizing single-subject design methodology for about two years. We have presented our work at conferences (Gerontological Society of America and the 2003 ASHA Conference), and have been reported in other publications. However, the acceptance of our clinical research as a valid endeavor has been difficult. Although we have run carefully controlled studies, we have encountered resistance in the peer-review process for publication based on our subject matter.
Obtaining grant funding has been another challenge. We have approached the National Institutes of Health (National Institute on Aging; National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) on one more than occasion to ask for guidance in the funding application process. For instance, program directors at NIH have said that AAT is not an alternative or augmentative treatment as Ms. Lewis suggests, nor is it a complementary and alternative procedure (which would bring more acceptance outside our profession). We have been met with similar resistance from large private foundations and granting agencies.
How can ASHA help? The ASHA Leader should consider publishing a serious review of animal-assisted activities/therapy. ASHA should also refrain from the urge to treat this rehabilitation procedure as a "cute" therapy technique (as evidenced by the title of the article).
Helen J. Kahn
Marquette, MI
|