Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33869316›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Canine-Assisted Interventions in Hospitals: Best Practices for Maximizing Human and Canine Safety.

Sandra B Barker, Nancy R Gee

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Race, Zoonoses and Animal Assisted Interventions in Pediatric Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  11. Handlers' Representations on Therapy Dogs' Welfare.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  12. Development of Desirable Behaviors in Dog-Assisted Interventions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Enhancing the Selection and Performance of Working Dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Review
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

2 authors.

Sandra B BarkerCenter for Human-Animal Interaction, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.
Nancy R GeeCenter for Human-Animal Interaction, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Canine-assisted interventions (CAI) are becoming more popular in hospital settings, representing a crucial intersection between animals, veterinary medicine, and society. However, standardized policies and procedures to minimize risk and maximize benefit to vulnerable humans and protect therapy dog welfare are lacking, posing a challenge to safe practice. Few intervention programs are evaluated to document efficacy compounding the potential risk. This paper presents a rationale for CAI in hospitals and describes the evidence, issues, and challenges to establishing and maintaining safe and effective programs for humans and animals. Recommendations are made for best practices based on the existing scientific evidence and a model program in place in a major medical center for 19 years. Scientific and practical implications are considered.

Indexed as

animal-assisted interventionbest practicescanine-assisted interventionhuman–animal interactionhuman–canine interaction

Identifiers

PMID33869316
PMCPMC8044758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.