ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023
The impact of Covid-19 on animal-assisted interventions: perceptions of UK animal-assisted intervention providers.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The perspectives of clinical level medical students on animal-assisted therapy: a study in Ghana.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnimal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly common in UK health settings. The Covid-19 pandemic has impacted on their delivery, with many organizations offering AAIs virtually during lockdown periods. This small-scale survey aims to explore the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of AAIs, and associated challenges and opportunities.
methodsA cross-sectional, retrospective questionnaire survey was conducted with UK AAI providers. The anonymized survey was distributed via academic and third sector networks and social media. Descriptive statistics and free-text responses are presented.
resultsThirty-six AAI providers completed the survey. Of these, 83.3% continued to deliver AAIs during the pandemic. Twenty-eight delivered AAIs remotely and highlighted associated challenges, such as clients being unable to touch the animal, and clients having restricted access to the required technology. Over half reported their animal missed face-to-face interaction. However, they also reported advantages to remote delivery, such as for those who are allergic or fearful of animals. The most commonly reported challenges of in situ delivery included difficulty maintaining distance from the client and the use of face masks, which were perceived to hinder communication.
conclusionThe transition to remote delivery has highlighted challenges and opportunities. Further research could explore these in greater depth and compare the impact of different delivery modes.
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.