Trial reportPloS one2021
Dog visits in nursing homes - increase complexity or keep it simple? A randomised controlled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of a Multilocus Sequence Typing Scheme forAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- How to Measure Human-Dog Interaction in Dog Assisted Interventions? A Scoping Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Comparative Genomic Analysis of Staphylococcal Cassette ChromosomeAnnals of laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Biotypic and genotypic diversity in Pasteurella canis isolated from host animals and humans: differences in trehalose fermentation and nucleotide sequences encoding trehalose-6-phosphate hydrolase (treC).The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the immediate response of nursing home residents to dog visits with or without an activity, and the impact of cognitive ability.
methodsIn a randomly controlled trial, 174 nursing home residents were allocated to 12 bi-weekly 10-minute visits: either ordinary dog visits (D, n = 57, 49 analysed), dog visits with an activity (DA, n = 56, 48 analysed), or visits with activity but no dog (A, n = 61, 54 analysed). We recorded frequency and duration of residents' verbal and physical interactions with the dog and persons. Data were analysed in three periods of four visits (period 1-3) as binomial variables (generalised linear models) or durations (non-parametric statistics).
resultsBoth visit type and impairment level affected the likelihood of interacting with the dog (D and DA). In some periods increased cognitive impairment lowered odds of touching the dog in DA visits (period 1: F1,85 = 5.17, P < 0.05) and talking to it directly (period 1: F1,90 = 4.60, P < 0.05; period 3: F1,87 = 5.34, P < 0.05). Throughout, residents talked less to persons during DA visits compared to D and A (P = 0.01-0.05), and level of cognitive impairment correlated negatively with talk duration (P < 0.001). Generally, high cognitive impairment level lowered odds of interacting with (period 1: F1,89 = 7.89, P < 0.01; period 2: F1,97 = 6.76, P = 0.01; period 3: F1,92 = 13.57, P < 0.001) and talking about the activities (period 1: F1,89 = 13.78, P <0.001; period 2: F1,88 = 3.27, P = 0.07; period 3: F1,86 = 3.88, P = 0.05).
conclusionVisits without specific activities stimulated residents to interact with the dog, whereas increasing the complexity of dog visits by adding activities resulted in less interaction with the dog for severely impaired residents. The optimal dog visit for the less cognitively impaired residents could include activities and thereby a possibility to interact with the dog in different ways, whereas for severely impaired residents, just being with the dog seems more appropriate.
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.