SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019
Animal-assisted therapy for dementia.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06722144 (Animal-assisted Therapy Improves Cognitive and Emotion in Nursing Home Residents), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Animal-assisted Therapy Improves Cognitive and Emotion in Nursing Home Residents
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness of Animal-Assisted Interventions for People Living With Dementia: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.International journal of nursing practice · 2026Pooled it
- Animal-assisted therapy on psychological and physical outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of global health · 2026Pooled it
- Perceptions and Experiences of Animal-Assisted Interventions for People Living With Dementia: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Equine-assisted services for people living with dementia: a systematic review.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Socially Assistive Robots for People Living with Dementia in Long-Term Facilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Gerontology · 2023Pooled it
- Physical environmental designs in residential care to improve quality of life of older people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Animal-Assisted Interventions for the Improvement of Mental Health Outcomes in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Animal-assisted therapy for dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Functional Outcomes in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Middle-Aged and Older Adults with Schizophrenia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Dog visits in nursing homes - increase complexity or keep it simple? A randomised controlled study.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Agitation in dementia: Evidence-based consensus recommendations.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Review
- Animal-assisted support programs for residents in Canadian long-term care homes: a feasibility and acceptability study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- An overview of the benefits of animal-assisted interventions in medical and therapeutic contexts for human health: cognitive mechanisms, sensory perception and welfare considerations.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Evaluating a co-developed pet robot intervention and implementation for residents with dementia in long-term care.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- Review
- The Use of Equine-Assisted Therapy in Patients With Aggression and Agitation Behaviors due to Moderate-to-Severe Dementia: A Case Series.Case reports in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Patterns and Trends in Global Nursing Robotics Research: A Bibliometric Study.Journal of nursing management · 2025Review
- Witnessing Self-Affirming Moments in Persons with Dementia While Interacting with Therapy Dogs: A Case Report.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- A survey of infection prevention and animal-assisted activity policies in health care facilities-United States, 2023.American journal of infection control · 2024Article
- Bioinformatic Identification of Signaling Pathways and Hub Genes in Vascular Dementia.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDementia is a chronic condition which progressively affects memory and other cognitive functions, social behaviour, and ability to carry out daily activities. To date, no treatment is clearly effective in preventing progression of the disease, and most treatments are symptomatic, often aiming to improve people's psychological symptoms or behaviours which are challenging for carers. A range of new therapeutic strategies has been evaluated in research, and the use of trained animals in therapy sessions, termed animal-assisted therapy (AAT), is receiving increasing attention.
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia. SEARCH
methodsWe searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate. MAIN
resultsWe included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWe found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.