Search

While the idea of using a dog in the classroom at first seems unorthodox, the history of using animals in therapeutic settings is extensive. The first documented use of animals in a therapeutic setting was in a mental institution in England in 1792 (Levinson, 1969). In North America, dogs were first used in therapy in 1919 at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C. (Brodie & Biley, 1999). Most of the emphasis has been on using animals in adult clinical or hospital settings. It was only later that therapy animals were used in these settings with young children. Anecdotal evidence such as that provided by author Laura Stinson and systematic research have shown mostly positive effects of having the dogs in the classroom (Burton, 1995; Limond, Bradshaw, & Cormack, 1997; Nebbe, 1991). One possible reason for this is the special relationships that often develop between children and dogs. Hart (2000) called the dogs "social lubricants," as they provided a "safe" environment for the children to open up to the teachers about their problems. These findings are promising, but more research needs to be done on the effectiveness of using therapy animals to help students learn new skills. The increase in specialized programs such as "SitStayRead" (a program that introduces dogs into the classroom to increase students' motivation to read) will help accomplish this goal. This article describes how "SitStayRead" and similar programs work, and Laura Stinson provides advice to those who might want to consider adding a dog to their classroom.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the county‐level availability of drug disposal receptacles in Kentucky community pharmacies and show the relationship between installed receptacles and opioid analgesic (OA)/controlled substance dispensing rates, stratifying where possible by urban‐rural classification. Methods: Using 2020 data from the Kentucky All Schedule Prescription Electronic Reporting program and disposal receptacle data from the US Drug Enforcement Agency, county‐level comparisons were made between number of receptacles and OA/controlled substance dispensing rates. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were used to assess for differences between rural/urban county designation and odds of ≥1 disposal receptacle and compare the rates of receptacles per dispensed OA dose in rural/urban counties. Findings: While rural counties saw higher OA and controlled substance dispensing rates, the majority (55.6%) of disposal receptacles were in urban locations. The odds of having at least 1 receptacle were higher in urban counties (OR 2.60, 95% CI: 1.15, 5.92) compared to rural. The estimated rate of disposal receptacles per million dispensed OA doses was found to be 0.47 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.61) in urban counties compared to 0.32 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.42) in rural counties, with an estimated rate ratio of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.01, 2.10). Conclusions: A mismatch between the availability of county‐level disposal receptacles in community pharmacies and the volume of dispensed OAs/controlled substances exists, resulting in fewer receptacles per dispensed OA in rural counties compared to urban counties. Future efforts are necessary to increase access to convenient disposal receptacles located in community pharmacies, particularly in rural communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]