Considerations for Utilizationof Animal-Assisted Therapy in Pediatric Dentistry Practice.

The use of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) in pediatric dental practices is a relatively new approach for behavior management, with few studies gauging interest in its use from the provider's perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess pediatric dentists' interest in and concerns with the use of AAT and identify its challenges and limitations. A survey was sent to the membership of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, comprising questions about providers' practices and their views on the benefits of and concerns about implementing AAT. Ninety-two percent of the respondents felt that pet therapy would improve a patient's comfort; 67 percent indicated they expected a moderate or strong improvement, but only eight percent expected no improvement. Hygiene (26 percent) and liability (26 percent) were the main reservations about its use. This paper illustrates that the profession is open to AAT for behavior guidance and offers ways to incorporate it into practice.

Participation in the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund policy by dentists in South Carolina's safety net.

OBJECTIVES: The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act appropriated $100 billion to the Provider Relief Fund, allowing for direct payments to health care providers due to COVID-19. Few studies have evaluated participation in the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), and none have specifically looked at dental providers in the safety net. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, secondary data analysis using a quasi-experimental cohort design of South Carolina dentists who received PRF payments, comparing those who did and did not participate in the safety net. Safety net practice was operationalized as those participating in Medicaid, and whether they provided care in dental health professional shortage areas, or rural communities. RESULTS: Of the 628 dental providers in South Carolina who received PRF payments, 34% were identified as Medicaid providers while 66% did not participate in Medicaid; we found no statistical difference between payments to Medicaid versus non-Medicaid dental providers. Of PRF payments to dental providers participating in South Carolina's Medicaid program, we found no difference between payments to rural and urban providers but did find that practices offering services in dental care shortage areas received less than providers practicing in counties not designated as a shortage area. CONCLUSIONS: The PRF achieved its goal of distributing financial support to providers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. But without policy imperatives linked to need-based allocations or incentives for PRF recipients to serve safety net populations, we may later learn this was a missed opportunity for PRF.