Perceptions and experiences of health care professionals and staff with animal-assisted interventions in health care settings: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to examine the perceptions and experiences of health care professionals and staff in implementing or coordinating animal-assisted interventions in health care settings. INTRODUCTION: Animal-assisted interventions are applied in the areas of health, education, and human services to help improve individuals' health and wellness. The positive effects of animal-assisted interventions on individuals have been shown in multiple health disciplines, from pediatrics to long-term care, and include outcomes such as decreased feelings of loneliness and increased feelings of support. The increase of animal-assisted interventions in human health has initiated growing research on health care professionals' perceptions and experiences of these interventions. No current qualitative systematic reviews have focused solely on health care professionals' and staff's perceptions of animal-assisted interventions. Conducting such a review will advance understanding of how these providers perceive and engage with animal-assisted interventions as well as their influence and role in coordinating these interventions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative primary studies that address the perceptions and experiences of health care professionals and staff in implementing or coordinating animal-assisted interventions in health care settings. METHODS: Nine bibliographic databases will be systematically searched for published and unpublished studies by employing a three-step search strategy. Studies published from database inception to present and in English will be considered. Two reviewers will independently appraise the studies and extract qualitative data using the standardized JBI critical appraisal and data extraction instruments. Findings from the review will be categorized according to similarity in meaning, and categories will be subjected to a meta-synthesis to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021258909.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".