Animal-Assisted Therapy and Counseling Support for Women With Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) interventions have been shown to assist in coping and improve patient responses to symptoms. Specifically, the presence of an animal has been found to lower anxiety and motivate participation in therapy. We aimed to explore the acceptability of and experience of AAT during individual breast cancer counseling sessions. METHODS: Patients undertaking counseling with a therapy dog present were invited to participate in the study. Patients were individually interviewed and asked to reflect on their experiences of AAT. Data generation and analysis were concurrent. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a process of constant comparison. RESULTS: Our sample included 8 female participants, 39 to 61 years old, at an average of 3 years post-breast cancer diagnosis. The majority of patients reported a positive experience with AAT. Themes that emerged around their counseling experience included benefits in the process of initiating counseling and benefits for greater engagement and personal disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating AAT into the delivery of counseling for breast cancer patients appears to be feasible and acceptable at a patient level. From a clinical perspective, AAT promoted increased communication with health professionals. This is of clinical importance as a means to improve participation and engagement in therapy-important elements in therapeutic outcomes. However, further evaluation of the impact of AAT on specific patient outcomes and psychological morbidity is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".