Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36765455›Full record

SynthesisDementia (London, England)2023

Animal-assisted and robotic animal-assisted interventions within dementia care: A systematic review.

Emily Shoesmith, Claire Surr, Elena Ratschen

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Dementia (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily ShoesmithDepartment of Health Sciences, 8748University of York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2420-4919
Claire SurrCentre for Dementia Research, 4467Leeds Beckett University, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4312-6661
Elena RatschenDepartment of Health Sciences, 8748University of York, UK.
University of York · GBLeeds Beckett University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal-assisted interventions and robotic animal interventions are becoming increasingly popular to support the care of people with dementia and may have the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions delivered to people with dementia, their characteristics, effectiveness, and the proposed mechanisms underlying any potential impact.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OVID Nursing, PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to summarise studies that evaluated common outcomes (agitation, depression, quality of life). A narrative approach was used to synthesise other findings.

resultsFifty-one studies were included: 18 RCTs; 12 non-randomised trials, 13 cohort studies, 7 qualitative studies and one mixed-methods study. Meta-analyses were conducted for a small number of RCTs, with effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions demonstrated for agitation. Narrative findings suggested animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions may be promising in improving depression, agitation, and quality of life. Three potential mechanisms of action were identified for both animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions, namely enhancing social connections, providing engaging and meaningful activities, and the affect-generating aspect of the human-animal bond. A fourth mechanism was identified for animal-assisted interventions only: promoting physical activity. Robotic animals appear to have a place in complex human-animal relationships, but a greater understanding of robotic animal interventions is required to harness the benefits that may be derived from their use.

conclusionDelivering these interventions appear promising in improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia. As most included studies had methodological limitations, these findings are preliminary, but contribute to the body of evidence providing an understanding in terms of intervention characteristics and mechanisms of action. When developing intervention guidance, attention should be given to potential mechanisms and fundamental characteristics such as session content, delivery format and facilitator role.

Indexed as

DementiaRobotic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsAnxietyHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Careanimal-assisted interventionsdementiarobotic animal interventions

Identifiers

PMID36765455
PMCPMC10014823
OpenAlexW4320033192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.