The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 6 of the 70 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Verified 2026-11-07 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
38 No full text of the sources · 18 Own result · 17 Own interpretation · 14 Own method · 10 No basis given · 5 Supported so far · 5 Sources not found · 5 Not checked yet · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Finally, only five of the studies in the present review (Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009;Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011;Pedersen et al. 2012;Villalta-Gil et al. 2009) reported or provided sufficient information to calculate an effect size (i.e., eta squared statistics) to estimate the strength of the intervention effect.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
- Supportedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 source
The Results (Table 2) give F statistics and degrees of freedom for intervention comparisons, including F = 4.20 with df = 1,55 for self-efficacy at six months. Those values provide sufficient information to calculate an eta-squared effect size. The count of five studies is the citing review’s own characterization, not a claim this trial could establish. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berget et al. 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“however, only three studies (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011;Pedersen et al. 2012) reported follow-up assessments beyond the end of treatment.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 source
The Methods > Outcome measures section states that patients were assessed at the end of the intervention and again six months afterward. This confirms that the cited 2008 study reported a follow-up assessment beyond treatment; the citation does not need to establish what the other two studies did. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berget et al. 2011 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedersen et al. 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“less sedentary behavior (p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.57)”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
plaindirectn = 19 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the interventions differed in terms of length and standardization.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“sensory seeking (p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.56)”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
plaindirectn = 19 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, participants in the dog-visit condition rated the usefulness of the intervention lower than the other two interventions.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there were no statistically significant improvements in any of the three intervention conditions with regards to tension, anger, confusion, or fatigue.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there were no differences between groups in these outcomes.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“inattention and distractibility (p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.61) following the intervention”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
plaindirectn = 19 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Surprisingly, however, social behavior significantly worsened in the IPt-d group, possibly because the intervention did not specifically focus on these issues.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“three studies administered follow-up assessments (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011;Pedersen et al. 2012), which demonstrated that the novelty effects associated with aaI may have been short-lived.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The study administered a six-month follow-up, but its Results report higher self-efficacy at follow-up than both baseline and the end of the intervention. The Discussion describes a delayed effect, not a short-lived novelty effect. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berget et al. 2011 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedersen et al. 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“three studies found beneficial psychological effects with farm animal-assisted therapy (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011;Pedersen et al. 2012), although two of these studies reported findings using the same sample.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 source
The Discussion reports positive, though moderate, effects on self-efficacy and coping from this farm animal-assisted therapy study. The Background also says this paper uses the same sample as earlier reports. This source therefore supports its role as one of the cited studies with beneficial psychological findings, but does not establish which two of the three cited papers share a sample. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berget et al. 2011 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedersen et al. 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“some studies used measures that tapped specific constructs, such as self-efficacy (e.g., Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Pedersen et al. 2012) and self-esteem (e.g., Chu et al. 2009), whereas others used broader measures, such as overall quality of life for children with cerebral palsy (e.g., Davis et al. 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 source
The Methods > Outcome measures passage states that the study measured self-efficacy with the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In the citing sentence, Berget et al. is offered as an example of a study measuring self-efficacy; the self-esteem and children’s quality-of-life examples are attributed to other sources. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedersen et al. 2012 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chu et al. 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“We also found that aaI using farm animals may be beneficial for individuals with depression (Pedersen et al. 2012) and other forms of psychiatric disorders (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedersen et al. 2012 source
- Supportedcites Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008 source
The Berget et al. citation is attached to the claim about other psychiatric disorders, not the separate depression claim. The Conclusion states that farm-animal-assisted therapy may be a useful addition to psychiatric treatment, particularly for patients with affective disorders. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Berget et al. 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In brief, the findings suggest that the aaa intervention was effective in alleviating symptoms of anxiety and improving coping and self-efficacy among individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis, though the effects on depression were somewhat less clear.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants in the IPt-d group improved in social contact (p = 0.041, d = -1.19),positive (p = 0.005, d = 1.08) and negative (p = 0.005, d = 1.64) symptoms of schizophrenia, and quality of life related to social relationships (p = 0.024, d = -1.12).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the second study, participants in the aaa group also reported significantly lower levels of anxiety (p = 0.002, η 2 = 0.21) and depression (p = 0.002, η 2 = 0.21) at the six-month follow-up.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirectn = 60 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there were 69 participants in the animal interventions, and 64 participants in the control conditions.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
plainn = 69- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Sample sizes in the two studies differed substantially, with one study examining the efficacy of the intervention in a relatively small sample (n = 34; Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009), and the other using a large sample (n = 99; Davis et al. 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Participants in the IPt group significantly improved in positive (p = 0.027, d = 0.82) and general symptoms of schizophrenia (p = 0.046, d = 1.69).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirectn = 12 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“all studies reported in the review utilized some form of psychometric outcome measure.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the initial search found 66,180 articles, which was reduced to 26,803 when duplicates were removed.an initial review of the abstracts was conducted to remove articles that were clearly unrelated to aaIs, or were not written in English, leaving 278 articles.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Selection of Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there were 76 participants in the animal interventions, and 43 participants in the control conditions.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plainn = 76- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there were no differences between the two groups on any of the outcome measures, both before and after treatment.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the decrease in state anxiety was not significant (p = 0.059, η 2 = 0.22), the effect size was large.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plainn = 29- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“No significant differences emerged between the two groups except for an improvement in family cohesion in the therapeutic riding condition (p < 0.007).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al. 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the first study, participants in the aaa condition displayed a significant increase in self-efficacy (p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.25) and coping abilities (p = 0.03, η 2 = 0.11) at the six-month follow-up, whereas no such changes were observed in the control group (Berget, Ekerberg and Braastad 2008).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirectn = 60 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“after exclusion of articles, only eight articles remained, describing seven studies.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“across the three studies there were 37 participants in the canine interventions, and 46 participants in the control conditions (did not include contact with dogs).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Participants in the aaI displayed increased self-esteem, self-determination, and decreased emotional symptoms and positive symptoms of schizophrenia (p = 0.05), whereas no such changes emerged in the control condition.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirectn = 15 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these benefits were maintained at follow-up, whereas in the control condition no such changes were evident.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plaindirectn = 29- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the only study that used individual sessions as opposed to group sessions (Johnson et al. 2008) found no beneficial effects as a result of dog-assisted therapy.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson et al. 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Villalta-Gil et al. (2009) examined the effects of group sessions of aaI with dogs across 25 sessions and found that the intervention was successful in reducing negative symptoms of schizophrenia, which are traditionally more resistant to therapy.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Villalta-Gil et al. 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“and was associated with significant increases in self-esteem, self-determination”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chu et al. 2009 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the only non-significant study (Johnson et al. 2008) involved a minimal, short-term, unstructured intervention with cancer patients in active radio therapy.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson et al. 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Villalta-Gil et al. (2009) found reductions in negative symptoms of schizophrenia”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Villalta-Gil et al. 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“however, for children with autism, equine-assisted therapy appeared to have beneficial effects on social responsiveness, suggesting that equine programs may influence a range of social outcomes (Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the strengths of this study were the inclusion of a control group, the use of random assignment, the implementation of a structured intervention with clear aims and goals, and the use of assessments that adequately measured these specific domains.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Equine
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bass, Duchowny and llabre 2009 source
plainn = 34 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a meta-analysis conducted by Nimer and lundahl (2007) revealed that aaIs were effective across several domains.Specifically, there were large effect sizes for behavioral difficulties and symptoms of autism, moderate effect sizes for indices of wellbeing, and moderate effect sizes for behavioral and medical indicators.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nimer and Lundahl (2007) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a strength of this study is that it compared two interventions that were identical except for the inclusion of a dog and activities relating to the dog.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the abstracts of these studies were then reviewed by two independent raters, and articles were retained for the systematic review if they met the following inclusion criteria:”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Selection of Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that the relatively small sample (n = 29) may have limited the extent to which differences between the groups could be detected.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 29- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The National health and medical Research Council (NhmRC 2009) guidelines suggest that the highest level of evidence (level I evidence) is a systematic review of level II studies (i.e., well-designed, randomized controlled trials).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites NHMRC 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, four studies included in the review compared aaIs with active interventions rather than a wait-list control group, demonstrating that aaI was as effective as the alternative intervention, and in some cases more effective (holcomb and meacham 1989; haughie, milne and Elliot 1992; Bernstein, Friedmann and malaspina 2000;marr et al. 2000).”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Five studies were included in the analysis, and the results revealed that, overall, there was a statistically significant moderate effect size, showing a reduction in depressive symptomatology.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Souter and Miller (2007) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an important strength of the study is that follow-up assessments were conducted at three months.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The type of animal used is a meaningful basis for grouping and comparing the heterogeneous AAI interventions in the review.
- Rests on an assumption: The included studies' findings can be synthesized to infer that AAIs may benefit a wide range of individuals despite heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcome measures.
In the paper
“a search of relevant databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISma) guidelines.”
- Also stated in: § Selection of Studies · plain
“In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRISma) guidelines (liberati et al. 2009), the results of the systematic review are presented in Figure 1.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites liberati et al. 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Selection of Studies · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, it is important to note that the sample size (n = 30) was relatively small and may have lacked statistical power to detect an effect.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 30- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus, results indicate that a relatively short-term aaI can have beneficial effects on both emotional well-being and symptoms of schizophrenia.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 15 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In comparison to more traditional interventions, aaI provides a new and often exciting experience for participants, hence these types of intervention may be prone to novelty effects.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus, although it seems unlikely that there are additional studies that were not detected in the present review, this possibility needs to be acknowledged.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“however, the sample was small and the intervention was shorter in duration (15 minutes, three times per week, for four weeks) than those described in other studies both in terms of session duration and length of treatment.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Johnson et al. 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It may also be that some beneficial effects are either not observed until sometime after the intervention has finished, or that the beneficial effects may continue to develop post-intervention.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When more specific measures were used, positive changes were identified, suggesting that aaIs may have targeted effects on psychosocial outcomes.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is possible that similar studies using more precise language were not detected within the present systematic search.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, given the fact that positive outcomes were associated with group-based programs only, these changes may be attributed to a more generic social process.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The type of animal used is a meaningful basis for grouping and comparing the heterogeneous AAI interventions in the review.
“to manage this variability, we examined the outcome of these interventions based on the type of animal used in the therapy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The included studies' findings can be synthesized to infer that AAIs may benefit a wide range of individuals despite heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcome measures.
“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, there was variation in regard to the extent to which the various interventions were shown to be beneficial.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The search strategy and databases used captured all relevant RCTs on AAIs published between 2008 and 2012.
“Keyword searches were conducted of six databases (PsycINFO, mEDlINE, PROQUESt, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINahl).”
“In addition, the reference lists contained in the retrieved articles were examined for any additional articles that warranted inclusion.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The psychometric outcome measures used in the included studies validly measure the psychosocial constructs they purport to measure.
“all studies reported in the review utilized some form of psychometric outcome measure.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Whilst previous reviewers have noted that format (group), dose, or location (indoors/outdoors) may impact outcomes [11, 14], this review is inconclusive.”
From Incorporating animal-assisted therapy in mental health treatments for adolescents: A systematic review of canine assisted psychotherapy (2019) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Of the seven reviews that explored psychological variables, all concluded that AAI may be beneficial in reducing psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, mental illness or addiction [10–16].”
From Incorporating animal-assisted therapy in mental health treatments for adolescents: A systematic review of canine assisted psychotherapy (2019) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Eight systematic reviews have indicated that multi-species AAIs may be effective as an adjunctive treatment for human health and wellbeing [10–17].”
From Incorporating animal-assisted therapy in mental health treatments for adolescents: A systematic review of canine assisted psychotherapy (2019) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
“Villalta-Gil et al. (2009) found reductions in negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and an increase in quality of life and relationships in the aaI group relative to the control condition.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
“there were no differences between the two groups on any of the outcome measures, both before and after treatment.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Methodological Considerations
“only three studies (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011;Pedersen et al. 2012) reported follow-up assessments beyond the end of treatment.”
§ A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of Animal-Assisted Therapy on Psychosocial Outcomes > Results
“In one study, various aspects of psychological outcomes of the same RCt were reported in two separate publications (Berget, Ekeberg and Braastad 2008;Berget et al. 2011), and therefore this intervention is treated as one study in the present review.”
Citations
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
(1996) · Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) · doi:10.1111/j · Cited by 5,486
Animal-Assisted Therapy: A Meta-Analysis
Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/089279307x224773 · Cited by 712
The Effect of Therapeutic Horseback Riding on Social Functioning in Children with Autism
Bass, M. M., Duchowny, C. A., & Llabre, M. M. (2009) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0734-3 · Cited by 545
The Effects of Animals on Human Health and Well‐Being
Wells, D. L. (2009) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01612.x · Cited by 425
Do Animal-Assisted Activities Effectively Treat Depression? A Meta-Analysis
Souter, M. A., & Miller, M. D. (2007) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/175303707x207954 · Cited by 324
The Benefits of Human–Companion Animal Interaction: A Review
Barker, S. B., & Wolen, A. R. (2008) · Journal of Veterinary Medical Education · doi:10.3138/jvme.35.4.487 · Cited by 312
Animal-assisted therapy for dementia: a review of the literature
Filan, S. L., & Llewellyn-Jones, R. H. (2006) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610206003322 · Cited by 258
Berget, B., Ekeberg, Ø., & Braastad, B. O. (2008) · Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health · doi:10.1186/1745-0179-4-9 · Cited by 202
Trotter, K. S., Chandler, C. K., Goodwin-Bond, D., & Casey, J. (2008) · Journal of Creativity in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/15401380802356880 · Cited by 175
Burgon, H. L. (2011) · Journal of Social Work Practice · doi:10.1080/02650533.2011.561304 · Cited by 163
Construct Validity of Animal-Assisted Therapy and Activities: How Important Is the Animal in AAT?
Marino, L. (2012) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/175303712x13353430377219 · Cited by 156
Bernstein, P. L., Friedmann, E., & Malaspina, A. (2000) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/089279300786999743 · Cited by 151
DAVIS, E., DAVIES, B., WOLFE, R., RAADSVELD, R., HEINE, B., THOMASON, P., DOBSON, F., & GRAHAM, H. K. (2009) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03245.x · Cited by 145
Integrated psychological therapy for schizophrenic patients
Seeman, M. V. (1997) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(96)00162-6 · Cited by 135
Johnson, R. A., Meadows, R. L., Haubner, J. S., & Sevedge, K. (2008) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/08.onf.225-232 · Cited by 128
Animal-Assisted Therapy in Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Marr, C. A., French, L., Thompson, D., Drum, L., Greening, G., Mormon, J., Henderson, I., & Hughes, C. W. (2000) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/089279300786999950 · Cited by 123
Berget, B., Ekeberg, Ø., Pedersen, I., & Braastad, B. O. (2011) · Occupational Therapy in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/0164212x.2011.543641 · Cited by 107
Stanley-Hermanns, M., & Miller, J. (2002) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/00000446-200210000-00028 · Cited by 97
Hooker, S. D., Freeman, L. H., & Stewart, P. (2002) · Holistic Nursing Practice · doi:10.1097/00004650-200210000-00006 · Cited by 97
Effects of Pet Contact on Human Well-Being: Review of Recent Research
Gorrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1998) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781452232959.n1 · Cited by 79
Dog-Assisted Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Schizophrenia Inpatients
Villalta-Gil, V., Roca, M., Gonzalez, N., Domènec, E., Cuca, Escanilla, A., Asensio, M. R., Esteban, M. E., Ochoa, S., Haro, J. M., et al. (2009) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/175303709x434176 · Cited by 78
The Effect of Animal-Assisted Activity on Inpatients with Schizophrenia
Chu, C.-I., Liu, C.-Y., Sun, C.-T., & Lin, J. (2009) · Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · doi:10.3928/02793695-20091103-96 · Cited by 76
Effectiveness of an Animal-Assisted Therapy Program in an Inpatient Psychiatric Unit
Holcomb, R., & Meacham, M. (1989) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/089279389787057902 · Cited by 68
Farm Animal-Assisted Intervention for People with Clinical Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Pedersen, I., Martinsen, E. W., Berget, B., & Braastad, B. O. (2012) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/175303712x13316289505260 · Cited by 68
Use of Animal-Assisted Therapy with Psychiatric Patients
Rossetti, J., & King, C. (2010) · Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · doi:10.3928/02793695-20100831-05 · Cited by 66
Smith‐Osborne, A., & Selby, A. (2010) · Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/s10560-010-0201-1 · Cited by 61
DeCourcey, M., Russell, A. C., & Keister, K. J. (2010) · Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing · doi:10.1097/dcc.0b013e3181e6c71a · Cited by 52
An Evaluation of Companion Pets with Elderly Psychiatric Patients
Haughie, E., Milne, D., & Elliott, V. (1992) · Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1017/s0141347300017511 · Cited by 50
Breitenbach, E., Stumpf, E., von Fersen, L., & Ebert, H. V. (2009) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/175303709x457612 · Cited by 40
Ernst, L. S. (2012) · Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.nurse.0000418610.30948.68 · Cited by 10
Ernst, L. S. (2013) · Nursing Management · doi:10.1097/01.numa.0000427181.19436.19 · Cited by 7
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Variability in Human-Animal Interaction Research
Rodriguez, K. E., Herzog, H., & Gee, N. R. (2021) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.619600 · Cited by 213
Meehan, M., Massavelli, B., & Pachana, N. A. (2017) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1311050 · Cited by 184
Jones, M. G., Rice, S. M., & Cotton, S. M. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210761 · Cited by 164
Animal-Assisted Interventions in the Classroom—A Systematic Review
Brelsford, V. L., Meints, K., Gee, N. R., & Pfeffer, K. (2017) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph14070669 · Cited by 163
Current challenges to research on animal-assisted interventions
Serpell, J. A., McCune, S., Gee, N. R., & Griffin, J. A. (2017) · Applied Developmental Science · doi:10.1080/10888691.2016.1262775 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Maujean, A., Pepping, C. A., & Kendall, E.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Maujean, Annick
- Venue
- Anthrozoös
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-36
- ISSN
- 0892-7936 (ISSN-L)
- 1753-0377
- OpenAlex
- W2064151239
- Semantic Scholar
- 4b43b5ddf13e5d6d3a3f867501c66afd4f7d1e47
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Anthrozoös (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
