Cited by 25

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal-assisted and robotic animal-assisted interventions within dementia care: A systematic review

Shoesmith, Emily, Surr, Claire, Ratschen, Elena·2023·Dementia

Abstract

Background: Animal-assisted interventions and robotic animal interventions are becoming increasingly popular to support the care of people with dementia and may have the potential to improve a range of psychosocial outcomes. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions delivered to people with dementia, their characteristics, effectiveness, and the proposed mechanisms underlying any potential impact. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, PsycINFO, OVID Nursing, PubMed, CINAHL and Web of Science. Random-effects meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to summarise studies that evaluated common outcomes (agitation, depression, quality of life). A narrative approach was used to synthesise other findings. Results: Fifty-one studies were included: 18 RCTs; 12 non-randomised trials, 13 cohort studies, 7 qualitative studies and one mixed-methods study. Meta-analyses were conducted for a small number of RCTs, with effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions demonstrated for agitation. Narrative findings suggested animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions may be promising in improving depression, agitation, and quality of life. Three potential mechanisms of action were identified for both animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions, namely enhancing social connections, providing engaging and meaningful activities, and the affect-generating aspect of the human-animal bond. A fourth mechanism was identified for animal-assisted interventions only: promoting physical activity. Robotic animals appear to have a place in complex human-animal relationships, but a greater understanding of robotic animal interventions is required to harness the benefits that may be derived from their use. Conclusion: Delivering these interventions appear promising in improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia. As most included studies had methodological limitations, these findings are preliminary, but contribute to the body of evidence providing an understanding in terms of intervention characteristics and mechanisms of action. When developing intervention guidance, attention should be given to potential mechanisms and fundamental characteristics such as session content, delivery format and facilitator role.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/14713012231155985

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of paper selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of paper selection process.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. (a) Comparison of agitation at longest follow-up in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). (b) Comparison of depression at longest follow-up in RCTs. (c) Comparison of quality of life at longest follow-up in RCTs.
Figure 2. (a) Comparison of agitation at longest follow-up in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). (b) Comparison of depression at longest follow-up in RCTs. (c) Comparison of quality of life at longest follow-up in RCTs.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Initial programme theory of how animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions may ‘work’ within dementia care.
Figure 3. Initial programme theory of how animal-assisted and robotic animal interventions may ‘work’ within dementia care.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 94

  1. 10.1080/02703181.2019.1613466 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1111/opn.12239 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.3928/19404921-20210924-01 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/psyg.12554 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.10.016 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.12.014 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.eujim.2016.05.005 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bono A. V., Benvenuti C., Buzzi M., Ciatti R., Chiarelli V., Chiambretto P., Morelli C., Pinciroli M., Pini A., Prestigiacomo T., Rolleri C., Valena E. (2015). Effects of animal assisted therapy (AAT) carried out with dogs on the evolution of mild cognitive impairment. Giornale di Gerontologia, 63(1), 32–36. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000363295700004.
  11. 10.1177/1054773819867250 · DOI
  12. 10.1007/s11469-017-9849-5 · DOI
  13. 10.2752/175303714X13837396326251 · DOI
  14. 10.2752/175303714X13837396326611 · DOI
  15. 10.1519/JPT.0000000000000167 · DOI
  16. Deeks J. J., Higgins J. P., Altman D. G., Green S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration.
  17. 10.7748/nop.2018.e994 · DOI
  18. EndNote (2013). EndNote. In: [64 bit]. Clarivate.
  19. 10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.ebo · DOI
  20. 10.3390/s20133771 · DOI
  21. 10.1177/1533317518772052 · DOI
  22. 10.1108/QAOA-10-2018-0047 · DOI
  23. 10.1017/S1041610206003322 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/B978-0-12-397045-9.00120-8 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/1533317514545477 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/08927936.2019.1569905 · DOI
  27. 10.1300/J018v24n03_13 · DOI
  28. 10.3928/00989134-20150806-44 · DOI
  29. Higgins J. P., Green S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. Retrieved 18/10/2021 from handbook.cochrane.org.
  30. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1177/1534735420943269 · DOI
  32. Hong Q. N., Pluye P., Fabregues S., Bartlett G., Boardman F., Cargo M., Dagenais P., Gagnon M.-P., Griffiths M., Nicolau B., O’Cathain A., Rousseau M.-C., Vedel I. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Canadian Intellectual Property Office.
  33. 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.12.016 · DOI
  34. Hung L., Gregorio M., Mann J., Wallsworth C., Horne N., Berndt A., Liu C., Woldum E., Au-Yeung A., Chaudhury H. (2021). Exploring the perceptions of people with dementia about the social robot PARO in a hospital setting. Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice (London, England), 20(2), 485–504. Article 1471301219894141. DOI: 10.1177/1471301219894141. · DOI
  35. 10.1186/s12877-019-1244-6 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1111/opn.12320 · DOI
  37. Jegatheesan B., Beetz A., Oremerod E., Johnson R., Fine A., Yamazaki K., Dudzik C., Garcia R. M., Winkle M., Choi G. (2014). The IAHAIO definitions for animal-assisted intervention and guidelines for wellness of animals involved. International Association of Human-Animal Interaction Organisations. Retrieved 26/07/2021 from iahaio.org.
  38. 10.1017/S1041610216000120 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/10447318.2013.873278 · DOI
  40. 10.1080/11038128.2018.1467486 · DOI
  41. 10.1300/J016v25n01_02 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1479-8301.2006.00156.x · DOI
  43. 10.3928/02793695-20090101-08 · DOI
  44. 10.1186/s12888-019-2245-x · DOI
  45. 10.1186/s12877-021-02277-9 · DOI
  46. 10.2752/175303708X390464 · DOI
  47. Kruger K., Serpell J. (2006). Animal-assisted interventions in mental health: Definitions and theoretical foundations. In Fine A. H. (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (2 ed., pp. 21–38). Academic Press.
  48. 10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102658 · DOI
  49. 10.1086/505099 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.032 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1177/153331750401900209 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.jagp.2013.03.004 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/s11259-009-9256-x · DOI
  54. 10.1177/1533317508326976 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104041 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01613.x · DOI
  57. 10.1111/psyg.12145 · DOI
  58. 10.1111/psyg.12418 · DOI
  59. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1017/S1041610211000226 · DOI
  61. 10.1111/j.1479-8301.2004.00062.x · DOI
  62. 10.1080/13607863.2016.1262820 · DOI
  63. 10.1177/1533317512464117 · DOI
  64. 10.1177/1054773813492546 · DOI
  65. 10.7748/nop2014.03.26.3.31.e517 · DOI
  66. Olsen C., Pedersen I., Bergland A., Enders-Slegers M.-J., Ihlebaek C. (2019). Engagement in elderly persons with dementia attending animal-assisted group activity [Neurological Disorders & Brain Damage 3297]. Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice, 18(1), 245–261. DOI: 10.1177/1471301216667320. · DOI
  67. 10.1002/gps.4436 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Parra E. V., Perez P. E., Garre J. M. H. (2021). Benefits of dog-assisted therapy in patients with dementia residing in aged care centers in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1–12. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18041471. · DOI
  69. Pawson R., Greenhalgh T., Harvey G., Walshe K. (2004). Realist synthesis: An introduction. ESRC Research Methods Programme.
  70. 10.1177/0891988718774634 · DOI
  71. 10.1177/0891988719868306 · DOI
  72. 10.3233/JAD-160703 · DOI · Paper page
  73. 10.5430/jnep.v6n9p56 · DOI
  74. 10.1093/geront/gny046 · DOI · Paper page
  75. 10.3390/ani11051366 · DOI
  76. 10.1136/bmj.l6260 · DOI
  77. 10.1177/153331750301800610 · DOI · Paper page
  78. 10.3390/ijerph17165899 · DOI
  79. Ryan R. (2016). Cochrane consumers and communication group: Meta-analysis. http://ccrg.cochrane.org
  80. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01332 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 10.3390/ani10071142 · DOI
  82. 10.1300/J016v30n01_04 · DOI · Paper page
  83. 10.1016/B978-0-12-801292-5.00002-X · DOI
  84. Soler M. V., Aguera-Ortiz L., Rodriguez J. O., Rebolledo C. M., Munoz A. P., Perez I. R., Ruiz E. O., Sanchez A. B., Cano V. H., Chillon L. C., Ruiz S. F., Alvarez J. L., Salas B. L., Plaza J. M. C., Rico F. M., Dago G. A., Martin P. M. (2015). Social robots in advanced dementia [neurological disorders & brain damage 3297]. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7. http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=psyc12&NEWS=N&AN=2017-00421-001
  85. 10.3390/ani3010127 · DOI
  86. 10.1111/opn.12053 · DOI
  87. 10.1080/17482631.2017.1347013 · DOI
  88. Takayanagi K., Kirita T., Shibata T. (2014). Comparison of verbal and emotional responses of elderly people with mild/moderate dementia and those with severe dementia in responses to seal robot, PARO [Original Research]. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 6(257), 257. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00257. · DOI
  89. 10.1024/1421-0185/a000191 · DOI
  90. 10.2752/175303713X13636846944169 · DOI
  91. 10.1080/17437199.2010.534965 · DOI
  92. 10.1111/psyg.12385 · DOI
  93. 10.1177/1054773818756987 · DOI
  94. 10.1177/1054773818756987 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shoesmith, E., Surr, C., & Ratschen, E.
Affiliations
  • University of York
  • Leeds Beckett University
Venue
Dementia
Published
2023-02-10
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
664-693
ISSN
  • 1471-3012
  • 1741-2684
Cited by
25
References
6
Language
en
Funders
Tees, Esk and Wears Valley NHS Foundation Trust Research Capability Funding Award (None provided)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review