Benefits and challenges of animal-assisted therapy in older adults: a literature review
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
Animal-assisted therapy involves the use of highly trained animals, such as dogs and cats, in conjunction with conventional treatments to address the physical and emotional needs of patients. This article presents a literature review of the health benefits and challenges associated with the use of animal-assisted therapy in the care of older patients in hospitals and long-term care facilities. Eleven original research articles were included and three themes were identified: physiological outcomes, psychological outcomes, and challenges associated with using animal-assisted therapy in patient care. The literature review aims to enhance nurses' knowledge of the health benefits of animal-assisted therapy as an adjunct to traditional treatments. It found that animal-assisted therapy can improve sleep, reduce depression and enhance mood in older patients. Challenges were identified in relation to ensuring infection prevention and control and in sustaining the implementation and benefits of interventions. Further research is necessary to explore the sustainability and long-term benefits of animal-assisted therapy in healthcare settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it