ReviewAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025
Exploring human-animal interactions beyond academic research: A rapid review of grey literature.
Review in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- The Dog-Guardian Relationship and Its Meanings: Perceptions, Expectations, and Impacts on Guardians' Lives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing recognition of the diverse benefits of human-animal interactions (HAIs) has propelled related studies. Although most of the benefits have been illustrated by academic literature (e.g. journal articles, academic theses, and project reports), the grey literature contributes to a comprehensive understanding of HAIs and offers new perspectives, informing prospective research, practices, and policies. Adapting the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, this rapid review examined 151 articles covering HAIs from 2016-2022. The univariate analysis results revealed that the sources covered various animal species (e.g. dogs, cats, birds), types of animals (e.g. companion animals, therapy animals, zoo animals), and vulnerable populations (e.g. older adults, people with disabilities). HAIs could be found across different settings, such as households, schools, healthcare facilities, and more. The thematic analysis identified three primary categories associated with HAIs' benefits in public education: (1) HAIs benefit the well-being of individuals, families, and animals; (2) HAIs promote prosocial behaviours and community development; and (3) HAIs improve disaster preparedness and response. The results highlight the multifaceted positive influences of HAIs on human well-being, animal welfare, and building healthy and resilient communities. Grey literature plays an essential role in knowledge mobilisation through public education, promoting the interconnectedness between human well-being and animal welfare.
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.