ArticleHuman-animal interactions2022
Survey of international academic centers and institutes focused on human-animal bond: Scope and landscape in 2021.
Article in Human-animal interactions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Routine surveying of academic centers focused on the human-animal bond is critical to understand the trajectory of the field and to create an environment where centers can learn from one another and build collaborations. The purpose of this manuscript was to report the findings of a survey of these human-animal bond centers, to summarize the status of the field, and to identify changes within the field since 2016. Survey questions concentrated on the demographic characteristics, engagement programs, educational opportunities, and research focuses of the centers. Findings suggest that the field continues to grow as one-third of human-animal bond centers are less than 10 years old. The number of centers that participated in this survey increased by 31% compared to the previous survey (O'Haire et al., 2018). Centers have developed a variety of engagement programs, including animal-assisted intervention and companion animal education programs. About half of the centers (48%) offer degree programs and about one quarter of the centers (24%) offer certificate programs. Most centers (95%) focus their research on companion animals with the most studied companion animal being dogs (95%). The most frequent data collection method was surveys (86%). Qualitative analyses, behavior measures, and physiological measures were also common. The most notable changes from the 2016 survey include overall growth of the field (indicated by the establishment of new centers) and a shift in the specialty area of directors, moving from 44% of directors being veterinarians in 2016 survey to 90% having a human-focused specialty in the 2021 survey. Most centers' research focused on animal-assisted interventions which is consistent with the previous survey. As the field of the human-animal bond continues to grow and more centers emerge, ongoing evaluation of offerings is important to track changes, identify needs, and foster success.
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.