Cited by 149Human-Animal Interaction StudiesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsArt Therapy and Mental Health

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes

Open access
Maujean, Annick, Pepping, Christopher A., Kendall, Elizabeth·2015·Anthrozoös

Abstract

The use of animal-assisted interventions (aaIs) to achieve psychological benefits has expanded rapidly over the last few years. However, this is a vastly under-researched area, and the research to date has been largely descriptive, in the form of case studies, or has used only small groups of participants with no control condition. Remarkably few studies have utilized gold standard randomized controlled designs. The aim of the present review was to examine the current state of the literature in regard to only randomized controlled trials (RCts) examining the psychosocial benefits of aaIs, which is a necessary step in order to move the field forward. A search of relevant databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISma) guidelines. A total of 66,180 articles were identified at the outset; this was reduced to eight articles (involving 7 studies), following the removal of duplicates (39,377), unrelated titles (26,525), and those that did not meet inclusion criteria (270). Findings from the present review suggest that aaIs may be of benefit to a wide range of individuals, including children with autism, and adults with psychological disorders, including schizophrenia. However, further research using well-designed RCts is required to more definitively explore what specific types of aaI are beneficial for specific populations. Recommendations for future research are provided.

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 · 10.2752/089279315x14129350721812

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maujean, A., Pepping, C. A., & Kendall, E.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Maujean, Annick
Venue
Anthrozoös
Published
2015-03
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
23-36
ISSN
  • 0892-7936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-0377
OpenAlex
W2064151239
Cited by
149
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anthrozoös (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Art Therapy and Mental Health
Keywords
animal-assisted interventions, psychosocial outcomes, human-animal interaction, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, mental illness, children, adults, randomized controlled trials

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