After experiencing canine COVID-19 screening at concerts, participants reported greater trust in detection dogs, positioning them as a fast and reliable tool for safer mass events.
Study: Public perception of medical detection dogs and other COVID-19 testing strategies
In a recent article in the journal Frontiers in Public Health, researchers conducted a feasibility study by examining the perceptions of concertgoers in Germany regarding different testing methods for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly the use of medical detection dogs.
Most participants preferred canine testing over antigen or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, shifting from a preference for sweat samples before concerts to higher support for direct sniffing afterwards. However, the authors noted that sweat sampling was considered a more practical and privacy-conscious option for many participants, particularly those concerned about allergies, fear of dogs, or privacy issues. Participants were less supportive of dog-based testing in schools, with 51.86% explicitly opposing its use in this setting.
Background
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about sweeping global changes, particularly in social and cultural life. In Germany, lockdowns that began in March 2020 halted gatherings, including concerts and sports events. To reduce viral spread and facilitate a gradual return to normalcy, various testing methods were implemented in conjunction with vaccines. While PCR tests remain the diagnostic gold standard due to their high sensitivity and specificity, they are expensive, require specialized equipment, and take hours or even days to process.
Their reliance on swabs also makes them uncomfortable for many, limiting widespread acceptance. Rapid antigen tests became more common because of their accessibility, yet their lower accuracy and ambiguous results often caused confusion. To address these limitations, innovative diagnostic approaches gained traction. Among them, medical detection dogs demonstrated strong accuracy, with sensitivity around 82–85% and specificity greater than 99% in the concert study. They could even differentiate SARS-CoV-2 infections from other respiratory diseases, showing potential as a cost-effective and scalable solution.
Despite the rollout of vaccines, challenges such as unequal distribution and variable immune responses highlighted the ongoing need for complementary testing strategies.
About the study
Researchers set out to investigate public opinion on canine-based SARS-CoV-2 testing at large events, focusing on its acceptability, feasibility, and future role in pandemic preparedness. Participants visited a certified testing center, where they gave informed consent, underwent both PCR and antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), and completed a pre-concert questionnaire. This survey collected demographic and medical data as well as perceptions of different testing methods, including PCR, Ag-RDTs, and canine testing.
Then, participants attended one of four concerts held within an eight-day period. Before entry, they provided a sweat sample from the crook of the arm, which trained detection dogs screened for SARS-CoV-2. Only individuals with a negative result were admitted. Concert attendance totaled 2,802 individuals, with numbers ranging from 466 to over 1,000 per event.
After the concert, participants were invited to complete a follow-up questionnaire at home via email. This post-concert survey asked about their experiences, confidence in different testing methods, and views on where canine detection should be deployed. In total, 4,124 individuals completed the first survey, and 1,315 responded to the second. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and only fully completed responses were included to ensure reliability and validity.
Key findings
Of 5,439 surveys, most respondents were aged 21–40 and mainly female. Before concerts, 39% preferred canine sweat-sample, 32% direct sniffing, 21% PCR, and 9% Ag-RDTs. After concerts, preferences shifted to 40% direct sniffing, 32% sweat-sample, 23% PCR, and 2% Ag-RDTs. Confidence in PCRs stayed high (87% reliable pre- and post-concert). Perceptions of canine testing improved after the events.
Initially, 59% of respondents rated dogs as reliable or very reliable, but this rose to almost 90% after the concert. Similarly, suitability ratings increased, with nearly 95% of participants deeming dogs appropriate for COVID-19 detection after experiencing the entry procedure. Over 60% reported an increase in confidence in canine testing.
Respondents strongly supported deploying dogs at airports, train stations, ports (approximately 89%), and large cultural or sporting events (between 80% and 88%). Opinions were more divided in sensitive settings such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes, with many citing privacy or vulnerability concerns. Support dropped sharply for workplaces, hotels, and especially private dwellings. In contrast, confidence in both official and self-administered Ag-RDTs declined, with neutrality and skepticism increasing after the concert.
Conclusions
This study highlights strong public support for medical detection dogs as a COVID-19 testing method, especially after direct experience at a concert. Acceptance and trust in canine testing increased, with many participants favoring it over antigen-based tests, whose credibility declined after the event. PCR testing maintained its reputation as the ‘gold standard,’ but canine methods were seen as faster, less costly, and practical alternatives, particularly for large gatherings.
Participants also viewed detection dogs as appropriate for high-traffic settings like airports and train stations, though acceptance was lower in more private or sensitive environments, such as homes and nursing facilities. The authors emphasized that sweat sampling, although less preferred after the concert, was highlighted as a key practical approach that balances efficiency, privacy, and participant comfort.
They also noted potential sampling bias, as concert attendees who voluntarily joined an event featuring dog testing might have been more receptive to the topic than the general population. Cultural and historical context may also influence attitudes: the acceptance of canine testing is generally higher in Western countries, such as Germany and France, but lower in countries like Russia and China. In Germany, the historical use of dogs for surveillance during WWII and in East Germany could affect perceptions, particularly among older generations.
A key strength of this research is its real-world evaluation, which provides insights into how firsthand exposure influences public opinion. However, the sample of concert attendees already informed about the testing approach may limit broader generalizability. Overall, canine testing shows promise as part of pandemic preparedness, complementing traditional methods. Standardized protocols and supportive regulations will be essential for scaling up their use and ensuring long-term public confidence.
