“Better Than Any Medicine:” Understanding How Therapy Dogs Support Patients Presenting with Mental Health and Substance Use Concerns in an Emergency Department Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, emergency departments have a large number of patients with mental health and substance use concerns passing through their doors. Our research aim was to assess the impact that therapy dog visits may have for patients presenting with mental health and/or substance use concerns to an emergency department based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Working alongside an active patient advisory group and community-based therapy dog program volunteers, our mixed method approach utilizing ethnography, surveys, and interviews showed that therapy dog visitation had a beneficial impact on both patients and staff, thus improving the overall patient experience. Our study displays how the patient experience was enhanced via improved patient communication; a decrease in agitation or distress; providing a sense of connection from perceived non-judgemental support; an increase in hope and optimism; and a welcomed, calming distraction from local stressors. Further, staff also received benefit in their working conditions where they considered the therapy dog a member of the care team. This paper outlines how including therapy dog visits as a complementary aide in existing provisional care settings provides a more holistic and empathetic approach to mental health and substance use responses in the Canadian context, which is particularly relevant in busy, high-stress emergency departments.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".