The effect of pet therapy on the physiological and subjective stress response: A meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have reported that exposure to pet therapy (PT) can reduce physiological and subjective stress and anxiety levels. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the efficacy of PT as a method for reducing physiological stress levels (blood pressure and heart rate) and subjective stress and anxiety scores (self-reported stress/anxiety). Further, we examined the effects of sample characteristics and modifications to the PT (different age groups and health status of participants across samples, whether a stressor was present, and individual versus group PT) as potential moderators of the relationship between PT and stress reactivity. Our searches incorporated articles published from May 2017 and earlier in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and PubMed. This meta-analysis included 28 articles with 34 independent samples and contained a total of 1,310 participants. Using a random effects model, we determined that significant differences occurred in heart rate, self-reported anxiety, and self-reported stress after PT exposure compared with before PT. However, we did not detect significant differences in blood pressure after PT. Sample characteristics and modifications to the PT significantly moderated the effect of PT on stress responses. Our results suggest that PT can be an effective program for reducing stress reactivity.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it