Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40837956›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Dog-assisted interventions to support health and wellbeing: a national survey of current practice in England.

Emily Shoesmith, Sophie S Hall, Evgenia Riga, Daniel S Mills, Selina Gibsone, Dean McMillan, Qi Wu, Chris Clarke, Elena Ratschen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Emily Shoesmith *Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom.
Sophie S Hall *Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Evgenia RigaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom.
Daniel S MillsDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.
Selina GibsoneDogs for Good, The Frances Hay Centre, Banbury, United Kingdom.
Dean McMillanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom.
Qi WuDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom.
Chris ClarkeFoss Park Hospital, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, York, United Kingdom.
Elena RatschenDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In England, dog-assisted interventions (DAIs) are increasingly used to support the health and wellbeing of individuals with mental and physical health conditions. Although research in this area is increasing, little is known about the national prevalence and characteristics of DAIs in practice. Advancing knowledge is important to inform development of research, policy and practice in the field. Methods: An online survey of DAI providers in England was conducted to collect data on DAI service provision, including target populations, session content and structure, implementation challenges, and best practices in dog selection, training, and welfare monitoring. Results: Of 72 invitations sent to DAI organizations and therapists, 31 participants completed the survey (response rate: 41.3%). DAIs were primarily used to support individuals with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, autism) across the National Health Service (80.6%), private healthcare (61.3%), and educational settings (41.9%). Respondents estimated delivering DAIs across 7,679 institutions. Interventions included structured therapeutic sessions (61.3%) and spontaneous activities (51.6%), mostly delivered individually (90.5%) rather than to groups. Over half reported delivering dog-assisted therapy, but 38.7% were unsure whether sessions had individualized goals. Session frequency and duration varied; most lasted 31-60 min (54.8%) and occurred weekly (45.2%). Key challenges included limited access to delivery spaces (35.5%), infection control concerns (32.3%), and difficulties "matching" dogs to service users (22.6%). Dog selection relied on temperament assessments (100%). While 54.8% of handlers received formal training, content varied. Some were trained in dog body language and risk assessment; others were not. Welfare monitoring primarily depended on handler observation (90.3%) and access to basic resources such as water. Discussion: DAIs are now implemented in thousands of health, care and educational settings across England, serving diverse clinical populations of all ages, especially those with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions. Interventions range from structured, goal-oriented sessions (e.g., supporting mental, emotional, or physical health) to spontaneous interactions (e.g., community programmes, social events, recreational activities). Participant responses highlight substantial variation in DAI characteristics and delivery. These findings underscore the clear need for standardized good practice guidelines encompassing aspects related to outcome reporting, dog selection and welfare monitoring, and provider training.

Indexed as

Animal Assisted TherapyMental DisordersAdultAnimalsDogsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesbarriersdog-assisted interventiondog trainingdog welfareEnglandfacilitatorsnational survey

Identifiers

PMID40837956
PMCPMC12361161

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.