When Therapy Dogs Provide Virtual Comfort: Exploring University Students’ Insights and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the proliferation of canine-assisted interventions and the emphasis placed on the impact of these sessions in bolstering the well-being of visitors to sessions, especially university students, it can be easy to overlook just how participating in one of these sessions is experienced by participants. Capturing participants’ experiences is important as this holds the potential to inform program design and delivery and elucidate mechanisms within the intervention that were found to be especially efficacious. Forging new empirical terrain, this study explored the insights and perceptions of 469 undergraduate students who participated in a virtual canine-assisted stress-reduction intervention at a mid-size western Canadian university. Participants were randomly assigned to synchronous or asynchronous and dog or no-dog conditions and were asked to share their views of their experience by rating statements and responding to open-ended prompts. Thematic content analysis of findings revealed that a virtual canine-assisted intervention was well received by participants. Participants in the synchronous condition with a dog reported more favorable well-being benefits, as compared with participants in the asynchronous condition with a dog and with participants in both the synchronous and asynchronous conditions without a dog. Implications of these findings hold relevance for supporting geographically remote students and students for whom attending virtual sessions is the only option given barriers preventing them from in-person attendance. Correspondingly, considerations of the role of the handler and of animal welfare are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".