Specific and Non-specific Factors of Animal-Assisted Interventions Considered in Research: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Systematic review registration
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=158103, identifier: CRD42020158103.
SUBMITTER: Wagner C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274084 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The inclusion of animals in educational practice is becoming increasingly popular, but it is unclear how solid the evidence for this type of intervention is. The aim of this systematic review is to scrutinise the empirical research literature relating to animal-assisted interventions conducted in educational settings. The review included 25 papers; 21 from peer-reviewed journals and 4 obtained using grey literature databases. Most studies reported significant benefits of animal-assisted interventions in the school setting. Despite this, studies vary greatly in methods and design, in intervention types, measures, and sample sizes, and in the length of time exposed to an animal. Furthermore, a worrying lack of reference to risk assessment and animal welfare must be highlighted. Taken together, the results of this review show promising findings and emerging evidence suggestive of potential benefits related to animals in school settings. The review also indicates the need for a larger and more robust evidence base driven by thorough and strict protocols. The review further emphasises the need for safeguarding for all involved-welfare and safety are paramount.
| S-EPMC5551107 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAnimal-assisted interventions and robotic animal interventions are becoming increasingly popular to support the care of people with dementia and may have the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions delivered to people with dementia, their characteristics, effectiveness, and the proposed mechanisms underlying any potential impact.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OVID Nursing, PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to summarise studies that evaluated common outcomes (agitation, depression, quality of life). A narrative approach was used to synthesise other findings.ResultsFifty-one studies were included: 18 RCTs; 12 non-randomised trials, 13 cohort studies, 7 qualitative studies and one mixed-methods study. Meta-analyses were conducted for a small number of RCTs, with effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions demonstrated for agitation. Narrative findings suggested animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions may be promising in improving depression, agitation, and quality of life. Three potential mechanisms of action were identified for both animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions, namely enhancing social connections, providing engaging and meaningful activities, and the affect-generating aspect of the human-animal bond. A fourth mechanism was identified for animal-assisted interventions only: promoting physical activity. Robotic animals appear to have a place in complex human-animal relationships, but a greater understanding of robotic animal interventions is required to harness the benefits that may be derived from their use.ConclusionDelivering these interventions appear promising in improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia. As most included studies had methodological limitations, these findings are preliminary, but contribute to the body of evidence providing an understanding in terms of intervention characteristics and mechanisms of action. When developing intervention guidance, attention should be given to potential mechanisms and fundamental characteristics such as session content, delivery format and facilitator role.
| S-EPMC10014823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dogs are becoming increasingly popular in pedagogical settings. Particularly children with special educational needs are believed to benefit from dog-assisted interventions. However, reliable evidence for supporting such claims is still scarce and reports on the effectiveness of this approach are often anecdotal. With our review we aim at evaluating the literature to answer the question, whether dog-assisted interventions in an educational setting can help children with special educational needs to improve and to develop their emotional, social and cognitive skills. Following the PRISMA Guidelines, the literature was systematically searched for experimental studies until February 2021. Eighteen studies were finally included, which varied greatly in type of intervention, outcomes measured, sample sizes, and scientific quality, which precluded a formal meta-analysis. Hence, we resorted to a narrative synthesis. Overall, the studies report mixed results in the different functional domains of stress reduction, motivation, social skills, cognitive abilities, reading abilities, social conduct, and mental wellbeing. No study reported any negative effects of the intervention. The most unequivocal evidence comes from studies on dogs’ effects on physiological stress response in challenging situations and on motivation and adherence to instructions, reporting significantly lower levels of cortisol in both children and pedagogues in the presence of dogs, as well as increased motivation to learn and participate. Findings for other outcomes, academic or social, however, remain inconclusive. Data on long-term effects are lacking altogether. Still, this review indicates the potentials of dog-assisted interventions in special pedagogy, particularly towards supporting a calm and trustful social atmosphere.
| S-EPMC9197485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn our experience, working with a therapy animal strengthens endurance, maintains motivation, provides a sense of achievement, and boosts overall mental resilience. The aims of this work were to summarize the results of quantitative research on the possibilities of animal-assisted intervention (AAI) among people with neurodegenerative and cerebrovascular diseases and to attempt to assess the effects of animal-assisted interventions in an objective manner and to find supporting evidence based on published literature.MethodsOur target groups are people diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, or stroke. A systematic search of relevant articles was conducted by two independent researchers in April 2021 and August 2023. The search for studies was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid databases, specifying keywords and search criteria. The qualitative evaluation of the research reports was conducted by four independent researchers, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form.ResultsAccording to the scientific criteria and based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form, thirteen publications met the search criteria, out of which 9 publications were rated good and 4 publications were rated poor. Evaluating the publications we found evidence that AAI had a measurable impact on participants, as their physical and mental health status significantly improved; however, mental health improvement was more prominent.ConclusionsBy developing evidence-based research methodology and standardized research settings, AAI could be measured effectively as part of health care practice. This would bring significant benefits to the rehabilitation of patients in need.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021255776.
| S-EPMC10675848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) use human-animal interactions to positive effect in various contexts including cancer care. As the first installment of a 2-part series, this systematic literature review focuses on the research methods and quantitative results of AAI studies in oncology. We find methodological consistency in the use of canines as therapy animals, in the types of high-risk patients excluded from studies, and in the infection precautions taken with therapy animals throughout cancer wards. The investigated patient endpoints are not significantly affected by AAI, with the exceptions of improvements in oxygen consumption, quality of life, depression, mood, and satisfaction with therapy. The AAI field in oncology has progressed significantly since its inception and has great potential to positively affect future patient outcomes. To advance the field, future research should consistently improve the methodological design of studies, report data more completely, and focus more on the therapy animal's well-being.
| S-EPMC7444110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE OF REVIEW:The purpose of this review is to describe and assess the literature on mobile health (mHealth) and other technology-based HIV testing interventions published in the 5-year period from 2015 to 2020. RECENT FINDINGS:We identified 18 published technology-based studies, 6 of which were efficacy trials and the remaining 12 were either pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies. Most (n?=?10) interventions were conducted outside the USA, including countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (n?=?4), China (n?=?3), Latin America (n?=?2), and India (n?=?1). All efficacy trials showed some evidence of efficacy, although uptake of HIV testing was low among in intervention trials that consisted of a low number of text messages. Most pilot RCTs demonstrated high levels of feasibility and acceptability, as well as some evidence that the intervention participants benefited more than the control group. Many non-randomized trials similarly reported positive appraisal by study participants. Recommendations for future research and practice by the authors of the studies reviewed here are summarized. Technology-assisted HIV testing interventions may be an important strategy to reach national and global targets for HIV status awareness in the general population and for most at-risk groups. Although there appears to be growing evidence of their benefit, questions linger regarding how to leverage existing social media platforms to promote HIV testing, which interventions work for what populations, and best practices for scaling up mHealth and other technology-based interventions.
| S-EPMC7276280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.
| S-EPMC3651300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: "What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?" Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected.ResultsFour hundred thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types. 15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research (Category P), while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera (Category A), its treatment (Category B), reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence (Category C) and to potential downstream effects of chimera research (Category D). A significant proportion of identified passages (46%) fell under Category C.ConclusionsWe hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation.
| S-EPMC7092670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) are increasingly applied for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms albeit its effectiveness is unclear.Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of AAI for treating PTSD symptoms.Method: We searched 11 major electronic databases for studies reporting quantitative data on effects of AAI for children and adults with PTSD symptoms. Of 22'211 records identified, we included 41 studies with 1111 participants in the systematic review comprising eight controlled studies with 469 participants in the meta-analysis. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses with all controlled studies based on standardized mean differences (SMD), and calculated standardized mean change (SMC) as effect sizes for studies with a pre-post one-group design. Two independent researchers assessed the quality of the included studies using the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools. The primary outcome was PTSD or depression symptom severity measured via a standardized measurement at pre- and post-intervention assessments.Results: There was a small but not statistically significant superiority of AAI over standard PTSD psychotherapy (SMD = -0.26, 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.04) in reducing PTSD symptom severity while AAI was superior to waitlist (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.08). Getting a service dog was superior to waiting for a service dog (SMD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.28). AAI led to comparable effects in reducing depression as standard PTSD psychotherapy (SMD = -0.03, CI: -0.88 to 0.83). Pre-post comparisons showed large variation for the reduction in PTSD symptom severity, with SMCs ranging from -0.38 to -1.64, and for depression symptom severity, ranging from 0.01 to -2.76. Getting a service dog lowered PTSD symptoms between -0.43 and -1.10 and depression with medium effect size of -0.74.Conclusions: The results indicate that AAI are efficacious in reducing PTSD symptomatology and depression. Future studies with robust study designs and large samples are needed for valid conclusions.
| S-EPMC8330800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) usually contribute to the well-being and health of users/patients, but it is essential that the animals involved in these activities do not represent a source of zoonoses. This systematic review focused on the evaluation of the potential risk of the transmission of Toxocara by dogs' fur, considering their involvement as the main animal species in AAIs. Three databases were considered: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the PRISMA guidelines were used. Out of 162 articles found, 14 papers were identified as eligible for inclusion in the review. Although the findings were very heterogeneous, they showed that regular parasitological surveillance to plan effective control programs is strongly needed to guarantee the health of pets and consequently the public health, according to the concept of One Health. Since AAIs involve patients and/or users potentially susceptible, it is very important to appropriately treat dogs enrolled in these interventions after an accurate diagnosis of parasitic zoonoses.
| S-EPMC6826609 | biostudies-literature