Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37627471›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Cultivating the Acceptance of Assistance Dogs in Aged Care through Deliberative Democracy.

Amanda J Salmon, Nancy A Pachana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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. Review
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

2 authors.

Amanda J SalmonSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2043-0548
Nancy A PachanaSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8927-4205

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assistance dogs provide significant benefits to older adult owners. However, despite protective legislation, aged care facilities continue to not allow owners to retain their dogs on relocation. The purpose of the current study was to explore whether older adults should be allowed to retain their dog on relocation to an aged care facility, and what factors should impact this decision. Further, if allowed to retain their dog, what would be the best practice to allow for this? A deliberative democracy methodology was used, with a range of key stakeholders recruited. Focus groups were held, with follow-up questionnaires to establish deliberation for all questions. Results indicated that with sufficient objective measurement, fair decisions can be made to ensure the welfare and well-being of the owner and dog. Key policy and procedure changes would also be necessary to ensure ongoing support, such as training, care plans, and emergency directives. By ensuring sufficient policies and procedures are in place, training and support could lead to an ideal outcome where facilities could be at the forefront of a better future for aged care.

Indexed as

aged careassistance dogsolder adultsregulationsupport

Identifiers

PMID37627471
PMCPMC10451324

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.