Perceptions and Experiences of Animal‐Assisted Interventions for People Living With Dementia: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To synthesise stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of animal-assisted intervention (AAI) for people with dementia in community care settings. DESIGN: Qualitative evidence synthesis. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and AgeLine for potentially eligible studies. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data from included studies. We assessed the methodological limitations of included studies using an adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and used Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) tool to assess confidence in review findings. This review is reported using the ENTREQ checklist. RESULTS: We included 14 reports from 11 studies and developed three analytical themes incorporating a gardening analogy: planting-connecting with animals, growing-engaging in AAI and nurturing-making AAI work; and six subthemes: willingness to connect, building relationships, a rich experience, the benefits of AAI, individualised and holistic approach and training and support, with 15 key findings. CONCLUSION: This review describes people's experiences and perceptions of AAI for people with dementia, and provides recommendations on the development and implementation of AAI, with moderate to high confidence. Nurses need to consider the factors that influence the implementation of AAI identified in this review, to facilitate engagement and long-term impacts while adopting AAI in community care settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: This review may enhance healthcare professionals' understanding of AAI for people with dementia in community care settings. AAI is a complex intervention that can be delivered in varied manner. A multicomponent, flexible and individualised AAI is important. Additional training and education for staff are needed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A man with dementia and his wife who share a love of dogs, advised at each step of the review, providing insights and perspectives and contributing as co-authors.
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 | 0.054 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".