MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220984387 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262599

Outcomes of a controlled trial with visiting therapy dog teams on pain in adults in an emergency department

2022· article· en· W4220984387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ben Carey, Colleen Anne Dell, James Stempien, Susan Tupper, Betty Rohr, Eloise Carr, Maria Cruz, Sharon Acoose, Peter Butt, Lindsey Broberg, Lisa Collard, Logan Fele-Slaferek, Cathie Fornssler, Donna Goodridge, Janet Gunderson, Holly A. McKenzie, Joe Rubin, Jason Shand, Jane Smith, J. Trask, Kerry Ukrainetz, Simona Meier

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityFirst Nations University of CanadaUniversity of CalgarySaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAnxietyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialDepression (economics)Physical therapyRepeated measures designClinical trialIntervention (counseling)Internal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Pain is a primary reason individuals attend an Emergency Department (ED), and its management is a concern. OBJECTIVES: Change in symptoms and physiologic variables at 3 time points pre-post a ten-minute St. John Ambulance therapy dog team visit compared to no visit in ED patients who experienced pain. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using a controlled clinical trial design, pain, anxiety, depression and well-being were measured with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (revised version) (ESAS-r) 11-point rating scales before, immediately after, and 20 minutes post- therapy dog team visit with Royal University Hospital ED patients participating in the study (n = 97). Blood pressure and heart rate were recorded at the time points. Control data was gathered twice (30 minutes apart) for comparison (n = 101). There were no group differences in age, gender or ethnicity among the control and intervention groups (respectively mean age 59.5/57.2, ethnicity 77.2% Caucasian/87.6%, female 43.6% /39.2%, male 56.4%/60.8%,). INTERVENTION: 10 minute therapy dog team visit in addition to usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in reported pain from pre and post therapy dog team visit and comparison with a control group. RESULTS: A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare group effects. Significant pre- post-intervention differences were noted in pain for the intervention (mean changeint. = -0.9, SD = 2.05, p = .004, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.42, 1.32], ηp2 = 04) but not the control group. Anxiety (mean changeint. = -1.13, SD = 2.80, p = .005, 95% CI = [0.56, 1.64], ηp2 = .04), depression (mean changeint. = -0.72, SD = 1.71, p = .002, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.11], ηp2 = .047), and well-being ratings (mean changeint. = -0.87, SD = 1.84, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.49, 1.25], ηp2 = .07) similarly improved for the intervention group only. There were no pre-post intervention differences in blood pressure or heart rate for either group. Strong responders to the intervention (i.e. >50% reduction) were observed for pain (43%), anxiety (48%), depression (46%), and well-being (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant changes in pain as well as significant changes in anxiety, depression and well-being were observed in the therapy dog intervention compared to control. The findings of this novel study contribute important knowledge towards the potential value of ED therapy dogs to affect patients' experience of pain, and related measures of anxiety, depression and well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This controlled clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT04727749.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207