ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Animal Assisted Interventions in the Green Care Framework: A Literature Review.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of animal-assisted services for school-aged children: a systematic review.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Cow-Assisted Interventions in Social Farming: First Results of a Pilot Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- The feasibility of wildlife immersion experiences for Veterans with PTSD.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Green Care (GC) and Animal Assisted Interventions (AAI) are recognised practices useful to enhance the wellbeing of people through interaction with nature and animals. This study aims at understanding the interconnections between GC and AAI by analysing deeply which interaction with animals is conducted. Therefore, we carried out a literature search through Web of Science and Google Scholar that allowed retrieval of 993 records; after the PRISMA selection process, 42 were included. Relevant information was extracted: year of publication, geographical location, objectives, settings in agricultural environment, animal species, characteristics of users involved, type of human-animal interaction, coexistence of other activities without animals, animal health and welfare issues. From the review emerged that research on GC with animals is common in high-income countries and that the line between AAI and occupational therapy is often vague. Moreover, the most common setting for these interventions appears to be the farm, and frequently animals involved are not selected according to their ethological characteristics. Users in this context are extremely various and not only involved in activities with animals. Within the included studies, we noted a lack in the consideration of animal welfare that indicates the need for increased awareness among practitioners and a more ethical approach when animals are involved.
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.