ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2023
Rudolph, the kids' ward reindeer: a scoping review of the effects of support animals on the well-being of healthcare staff.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Byron's bear and dwarf rabbits in the classroom: a review of animals against academic stress.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany systematic reviews identify support animals or animal assisted activity as a beneficial and standard practice in several medical disciplines for patients (children, adolescents, and adults) and residents in care homes. A variety of animals are used such as dogs, cats, ponies, horses, alpacas, reindeer, penguins, rabbits, and tarantulas. Our objective was to explore the evidence regarding effects of animal assisted activity on a further population of interest; namely, healthcare staff.
methodsWe asked the question "how do support animals in healthcare settings affect the well-being of healthcare staff?" As an addendum, we were also interested in what - possibly more unique - animals have visited healthcare settings at Christmas time in particular. We conducted a scoping literature review using PubMed and Web of Science (search as of 26 April 2023).
resultsTwenty studies (in the USA, Australia, Europe; dogs: n = 19; cats: n = 1) since 2002 included: studies with biological measures (n = 3), longitudinal survey studies with analyses (n = 5), cross-sectional survey studies with analyses (n = 2), and cross-sectional survey studies with descriptive statistics (n = 10). Overall, animal assisted activities appear to be well-received by staff and there do not seem to be negative impacts on staff well-being.
conclusionsRelevant positive effects and avenues of research are identified. Our review suggests that, but not exactly how, animal assisted activity benefits staff. Study evidence is limited with most studies being cross-sectional, descriptive, having low participant numbers, and mostly only involving dogs. Nonetheless, the evidence is mostly positive. The potential of animal assisted activities impacting positively on staff well-being warrants systematic research. Gaps in hard-fact-evidence should not deter us - especially at the festive season - to encourage work with, and systematic research regarding, support animals that provide warmth, empathy, comfort, and more in healthcare settings.
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.