Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35765567›Full record

ArticlePeople and animals (West Lafayette, IN)2022

Perceptions and Practices of Key Worker Stakeholder Groups in Hospital Animal-Assisted Intervention Programs on Occupational Benefits and Perceived Risks.

Kathryn R Dalton, William Altekruse, Peter Campbell, Kathy Ruble, Karen C Carroll, Roland J Thorpe, Jacqueline Agnew, Meghan F Davis

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in People and animals (West Lafayette, IN), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn R DaltonJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Baltimore Maryland.
William AltekruseUniversity of Maryland Baltimore, School of Social Work.
Peter CampbellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine.
Kathy RubleJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Oncology, Baltimore Maryland.
Karen C CarrollJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Division of Medical Microbiology, Baltimore Maryland.
Roland J ThorpeJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Baltimore Maryland.
Jacqueline AgnewJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Baltimore Maryland.
Meghan F DavisJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Baltimore Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

Targeted Research Training CoreT42OH008428 · OH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI RAMACHANDRAN, GURUMURTHY · 2005 to 2025
$31.1M
Clinical trial of a disinfectant intervention in therapy dogs to combat hospital-associated pathogens and promote sustainability of Animal-Assisted visitation programsR01HD097692 · NICHD · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIS, MEGHAN F. · 2018 to 2022
$3.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD097692NIOSH CDC HHS T42 OH008428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Animal-assisted intervention (AAI) programs, used widely for patient benefit, have increasingly been used for healthcare workers (HCW) to reduce occupational stress. However, there are barriers to these programs which limit their utilization, for both patients and HCW, specifically infectious disease concerns. The aim of the research project is to identify barriers and facilitators to AAI program use for healthcare worker benefit, and determine knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding infectious disease risk and control policies, in order to understand the contextual parameters of program implementation. Methods: We collected perceptions of key stakeholders involved with hospital AAI programs (HCW and AAI workers) through semi-structured in-depth interviews. We used framework analysis to guide thematic coding, completed independently by three researchers. Results: We interviewed 37 participants in this study. We divided our themes into two topic areas: program use for HCW and perceived infectious disease risk. Use for healthcare workers included perspectives on the benefits for HCW and program barriers and facilitators (specifically collaboration and leadership). Perceived risk included opinions on infection concerns with AAI, thoughts on control measures to reduce this risk, and responsibility for safety during these programs. Conclusions: While significant benefits were reported for HCW, they were limited by administrative barriers and hazard concerns. Facilitators to surmount these barriers are best implemented with collaboration across the hospital and appropriate leadership roles to direct safe program implementation. By addressing these barriers through targeted facilitators in the form of evidence-backed guidelines, AAI programs can be used to benefit both patients and HCW.

Indexed as

Animal-assisted interventionshuman healthinfectious disease riskoccupational health

Identifiers

PMID35765567
PMCPMC9235541
OpenAlexW3116055598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.