Rudolph, the kids’ ward reindeer: a scoping review of the effects of support animals on the well-being of healthcare staff

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Thomas C. Erren, Jonas Wallraff, Ursula Wild, David M. Shaw, Philip Lewis
{"title":"Rudolph, the kids’ ward reindeer: a scoping review of the effects of support animals on the well-being of healthcare staff","authors":"Thomas C. Erren, Jonas Wallraff, Ursula Wild, David M. Shaw, Philip Lewis","doi":"10.1186/s12995-023-00395-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many systematic reviews identify support animals or animal assisted activity as a beneficial and standard practice in several medical disciplines for patients (children, adolescents, and adults) and residents in care homes. A variety of animals are used such as dogs, cats, ponies, horses, alpacas, reindeer, penguins, rabbits, and tarantulas. Our objective was to explore the evidence regarding effects of animal assisted activity on a further population of interest; namely, healthcare staff. We asked the question “how do support animals in healthcare settings affect the well-being of healthcare staff?” As an addendum, we were also interested in what - possibly more unique - animals have visited healthcare settings at Christmas time in particular. We conducted a scoping literature review using PubMed and Web of Science (search as of 26 April 2023). Twenty studies (in the USA, Australia, Europe; dogs: n = 19; cats: n = 1) since 2002 included: studies with biological measures (n = 3), longitudinal survey studies with analyses (n = 5), cross-sectional survey studies with analyses (n = 2), and cross-sectional survey studies with descriptive statistics (n = 10). Overall, animal assisted activities appear to be well-received by staff and there do not seem to be negative impacts on staff well-being. Relevant positive effects and avenues of research are identified. Our review suggests that, but not exactly how, animal assisted activity benefits staff. Study evidence is limited with most studies being cross-sectional, descriptive, having low participant numbers, and mostly only involving dogs. Nonetheless, the evidence is mostly positive. The potential of animal assisted activities impacting positively on staff well-being warrants systematic research. Gaps in hard-fact-evidence should not deter us – especially at the festive season – to encourage work with, and systematic research regarding, support animals that provide warmth, empathy, comfort, and more in healthcare settings.","PeriodicalId":48903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-023-00395-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many systematic reviews identify support animals or animal assisted activity as a beneficial and standard practice in several medical disciplines for patients (children, adolescents, and adults) and residents in care homes. A variety of animals are used such as dogs, cats, ponies, horses, alpacas, reindeer, penguins, rabbits, and tarantulas. Our objective was to explore the evidence regarding effects of animal assisted activity on a further population of interest; namely, healthcare staff. We asked the question “how do support animals in healthcare settings affect the well-being of healthcare staff?” As an addendum, we were also interested in what - possibly more unique - animals have visited healthcare settings at Christmas time in particular. We conducted a scoping literature review using PubMed and Web of Science (search as of 26 April 2023). Twenty studies (in the USA, Australia, Europe; dogs: n = 19; cats: n = 1) since 2002 included: studies with biological measures (n = 3), longitudinal survey studies with analyses (n = 5), cross-sectional survey studies with analyses (n = 2), and cross-sectional survey studies with descriptive statistics (n = 10). Overall, animal assisted activities appear to be well-received by staff and there do not seem to be negative impacts on staff well-being. Relevant positive effects and avenues of research are identified. Our review suggests that, but not exactly how, animal assisted activity benefits staff. Study evidence is limited with most studies being cross-sectional, descriptive, having low participant numbers, and mostly only involving dogs. Nonetheless, the evidence is mostly positive. The potential of animal assisted activities impacting positively on staff well-being warrants systematic research. Gaps in hard-fact-evidence should not deter us – especially at the festive season – to encourage work with, and systematic research regarding, support animals that provide warmth, empathy, comfort, and more in healthcare settings.
儿童病房驯鹿鲁道夫:辅助动物对医护人员福祉影响的范围审查
许多系统性综述都认为,辅助动物或动物辅助活动是多个医学学科中对病人(儿童、青少年和成人)和护理院居民有益的标准做法。使用的动物种类繁多,如狗、猫、小马、马、羊驼、驯鹿、企鹅、兔子和狼蛛等。我们的目标是探索动物辅助活动对其他相关人群(即医护人员)产生影响的证据。我们提出的问题是:"医疗机构中的辅助动物如何影响医护人员的健康?作为补充,我们还想知道在圣诞节期间,有哪些动物(可能更独特)特别造访了医疗机构。我们使用 PubMed 和 Web of Science(截至 2023 年 4 月 26 日的搜索)进行了一次范围界定文献综述。2002 年以来的 20 项研究(美国、澳大利亚和欧洲;狗:n = 19;猫:n = 1)包括:生物测量研究(n = 3)、纵向调查研究与分析(n = 5)、横断面调查研究与分析(n = 2)以及横断面调查研究与描述性统计(n = 10)。总体而言,动物辅助活动似乎很受员工欢迎,对员工福利似乎也没有负面影响。我们还确定了相关的积极影响和研究方向。我们的综述表明,动物辅助活动能使员工受益,但并不确切。研究证据有限,大多数研究都是横断面的、描述性的,参与人数较少,而且大多只涉及狗。尽管如此,证据大多是正面的。动物辅助活动对员工福祉产生积极影响的潜力值得进行系统研究。事实证据方面的差距不应阻碍我们--尤其是在节日期间--鼓励与支持性动物合作,并对其进行系统研究,从而在医疗保健环境中提供温暖、同情和安慰等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Aimed at clinicians and researchers, the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology is a multi-disciplinary, open access journal which publishes original research on the clinical and scientific aspects of occupational and environmental health. With high-quality peer review and quick decision times, we welcome submissions on the diagnosis, prevention, management, and scientific analysis of occupational diseases, injuries, and disability. The journal also covers the promotion of health of workers, their families, and communities, and ranges from rehabilitation to tropical medicine and public health aspects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信