Microbial sharing between humans and animals has been demonstrated in a variety of settings. However, the extent of microbial sharing that occurs within the healthcare setting during animal-assisted intervention programs is unknown. Understanding microbial transmission between patients and therapy dogs can provide important insights into potential health benefits for patients, in addition to addressing concerns regarding potential pathogen transmission that limits program utilization. This study evaluated for potential microbial sharing between pediatric patients and therapy dogs and tested whether patient–dog contact level and a dog decolonization protocol modified this sharing. Patients, therapy dogs, and the hospital environment were sampled before and after every group therapy session and samples underwent 16S rRNA sequencing to characterize microbial communities. Both patients and dogs experienced changes in the relative abundance and overall diversity of their nasal microbiome, suggesting that the exchange of microorganisms had occurred. Increased contact was associated with greater sharing between patients and therapy dogs, as well as between patients. A topical chlorhexidine-based dog decolonization was associated with decreased microbial sharing between therapy dogs and patients but did not significantly affect sharing between patients. These data suggest that the therapy dog is both a potential source of and a vehicle for the transfer of microorganisms to patients but not necessarily the only source. The relative contribution of other potential sources (e.g., other patients, the hospital environment) should be further explored to determine their relative importance.

With “stay at home” orders in effect during early COVID-19, many United States (U.S.) food system workers attended in-person work to maintain national food supply chain operations. Anecdotally, many encountered barriers to staying home despite symptomatic COVID-19 illness. We conducted a national, cross-sectional, online survey between 31 July and 2 October 2020 among 2535 respondents. Using multivariable regression and free-text analyses, we investigated factors associated with workers’ intentions to attend work while ill (i.e., presenteeism intentions) during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 8.8% of respondents intended to attend work with COVID-19 disease symptoms. Almost half (41.1%) reported low or very low household food security. Workers reporting a higher workplace safety climate score were half as likely to report presenteeism intentions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37, 0.75) relative to those reporting lower scores. Workers reporting low (aOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.35, 3.13) or very low (aOR 2.31, 95% CI 1.50, 3.13) household food security levels had twice the odds of reporting presenteeism intentions relative to those reporting high/marginal food security. Workplace culture and safety climate could enable employees to feel like they can take leave when sick during a pandemic, which is critical to maintaining individual and workplace health. We stress the need for strategies which address vulnerabilities and empower food workers to make health-protective decisions.

The benefits of animal-assisted interventions (AAI), to utilize companion animals as an adjunctive treatment modality, is well-established and a burgeoning research field. However, few studies have evaluated the potential hazards of these programs, such as the potential for therapy animals to transfer hospital-associated pathogens between individuals and the hospital environment. Here we review the current literature on the possible risks of hospital-based AAI programs, including zoonotic pathogen transmission. We identified twenty-nine articles encompassing reviews of infection control guidelines and epidemiological studies on zoonotic pathogen prevalence in AAI. We observed substantial heterogeneity in infection control practices among hospital AAI programs. Few data confirmed pathogen transmission between therapy animals and patients. Given AAI’s known benefits, we recommend that future research utilize a One Health framework to evaluate microbial dynamics among therapy animals, patients, and hospital environments. This framework may best promote safe practices to ensure the sustainability of these valuable AAI programs. Highlights: Despite the many benefits of animal-assisted interventions (AAI) for patients, there is a risk of therapy animals becoming vectors of hospital pathogens. There is an absence of literature on transmission of hospital pathogens between patients and therapy animals during an AAI session. More research is needed to improve the safety and utilization of this important adjunctive therapy.