Trial reportBMC geriatrics2026
A mixed-methods feasibility study of dog-assisted exercise therapy in geriatric inpatients.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal-assisted therapy (AAT) is a promising complementary approach in geriatric rehabilitation, but evidence on feasibility and patient experiences remains limited.
methodsThis exploratory, mixed-methods, two-arm randomized controlled parallel-group design (RCT) compared dog-assisted exercise therapy (intervention) to standard exercise therapy (active control) in geriatric inpatients during a two-week rehabilitation program. Quantitative data on mobility (TUG), depression (HADS-D) symptoms, motivation (VAS), and satisfaction (VAS)were collected and analysed using descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, group comparisons (unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney U test), and correlation (Spearman's ρ). Semi-structured interviews explored patientsexperiences. Data were analyzed separately and integrated using a joint display approach.
results27 patients participated in the RCT, and 11 in the embedded qualitative study. Quantitative measures showed no clinically meaningful between-group differences in mobility or depressive symptoms: mobility (TUG) (control: Mdn = 16.00, IQR [14.25, 22.50]; intervention: Mdn = 18.00, IQR [13.00, 20.50]); depression (HADS-D) = 0.2 points (95% CI [-3.2, 3.6], SD = 3.05). Motivation and satisfaction were consistently high across conditions. A strong positive correlation was observed between motivation and satisfaction (ρ = 0.65, p < .001). Qualitative results indicated high acceptance and feasibility, enhanced emotional well-being, motivation, social interaction, and engagement, particularly associated with the presence of the therapy dog. Mixed-methods integration indicated high feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Qualitative findings complemented the quantitative results by demonstrating that the therapy dog enhanced the ward atmosphere and patient engagement, despite the absence of measurable short-term clinical changes. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations include novelty effects, the dog's visibility across conditions, the influence of prior pet ownership, COVID-19, dropouts, small sample size, the awareness of the presence of the dog at ward for the control group, and a heterogeneity group of conditions. These factors may have impacted the overall outcomes.
conclusionAnimal-assisted exercise therapy is feasible and well accepted in geriatric inpatient care. Its primary benefits appear to be experiential and psychosocial, supporting engagement and rehabilitation participation rather than immediate clinical improvement. Further research should investigate long-term effects and underlying mechanisms.
trial registrationThis study has been registered in the German Clinical Trial Registry with trial ID DRKS00024955 on 22 April 2021 and was approved by the ethics committee (EA4/071/21).
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.