Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37443878›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Can Interacting with Animals Improve Executive Functions? A Systematic Review.

Deanna Tepper, Joanna Shnookal, Tiffani Howell, Pauleen Bennett

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. 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.

  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

4 authors.

Deanna TepperSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7491-1160
Joanna ShnookalSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia.
Tiffani HowellSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4932-5792
Pauleen BennettSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5864-4464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the potential benefits of using human-animal interactions to improve executive functions: cognitive processes that allow individuals to plan, solve problems, and self-regulate behaviour. To date, no comprehensive review has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing literature, adopting broad inclusion criteria. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 16 papers were identified from peer-reviewed literature. Additional papers were identified from grey literature, including 6 dissertations and 1 thesis. A review of these 23 studies found that human-animal interactions and executive functions are investigated in three main ways: (1) exploring the potential benefits of the human-pet relationship, (2) exploring the impact of an animal's presence during administration of executive function tests, and (3) evaluating the efficacy of animal-assisted services (e.g., animal-assisted therapy) on executive functions. Five of the included studies reported a significant improvement across all measured domains of executive functions, but effect sizes were underreported. Comparatively, 9 studies reported mixed findings,

Indexed as

adolescenceanimal-assisted serviceschildrencognitiondevelopmenthuman–animal relationshiphuman–pet relationshipolder adults

Identifiers

PMID37443878
PMCPMC10339988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.