Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32698731›Full record

SynthesisIntegrative cancer therapies

A Systematic Literature Review of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Oncology (Part II): Theoretical Mechanisms and Frameworks.

Timothy R N Holder, Margaret E Gruen, David L Roberts, Tamara Somers, Alper Bozkurt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Animal-assisted Activities for Pediatric Oncology Patients: Psychosocial and Microbial Outcomes.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timothy R N HolderUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6788-9970
Margaret E GruenNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
David L RobertsNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Tamara SomersDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Alper BozkurtUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) can improve patients' quality of life as complementary medical treatments. Part I of this 2-paper systematic review focused on the methods and results of cancer-related AAIs; Part II discusses the theories of the field's investigators. Researchers cite animal personality, physical touch, physical movement, distraction, and increased human interaction as sources of observed positive outcomes. These mechanisms then group under theoretical frameworks such as the social support hypothesis or the human-animal bond concept to fully explain AAI in oncology. The cognitive activation theory of stress, the science of unitary human beings, and the self-object hypothesis are additional frameworks mentioned by some researchers. We also discuss concepts of neurobiological transduction connecting mechanisms to AAI benefits. Future researchers should base study design on theories with testable hypotheses and use consistent terminology to report results. This review aids progress toward a unified theoretical framework and toward more holistic cancer treatments.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyQuality of LifeAnimalsHumansanimal-assisted activitiesanimal-assisted interventionsanimal-assisted therapycancerhuman-animal bondmechanismsoncologytheoretical frameworks

Identifiers

PMID32698731
PMCPMC7378713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.