Background The Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about the role that relationships and interactions between humans and animals play in the context of widespread social distancing and isolation measures. We aimed to investigate links between mental health and loneliness, companion animal ownership, the human-animal bond, and human-animal interactions; and to explore animal owners' perceptions related to the role of their animals during lockdown. Methods A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020. The questionnaire included validated and bespoke items measuring demographics; exposures and outcomes related to mental health, wellbeing and loneliness; the human-animal bond and human-animal interactions. Results Of 5,926 participants, 5,323 (89.8%) had at least one companion animal. Most perceived their animals to be a source of considerable support, but concerns were reported related to various practical aspects of providing care during lockdown. Strength of the human-animal bond did not differ significantly between species. Poorer mental health pre-lockdown was associated with a stronger reported human-animal bond (b =-.014, 95% CI [-.023-.005], p = .002). Animal ownership compared with non-ownership was associated with smaller decreases in mental health (b = .267, 95% CI [.079-.455], p = .005) and smaller increases in loneliness (b =-.302, 95% CI [-.461-.144], p = .001) since lockdown.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents an opportunity to explore the role of animals as sources of emotional and physical support during a period when most of the population is experiencing social and environmental challenges. We investigated how companion animal owners perceived the influence of human–animal interaction on their physical and mental health during the first COVID-19 lockdown phase in the U.K., and what concerns they had regarding their animals at this time. We also explored the impact of participants’ interaction with non-companion animals during this phase. A cross-sectional online survey of U.K. residents aged over 18 was conducted between April and June 2020. The final item of the survey invited open-ended free-text responses, allowing participants to describe any experiences and/or perceptions of their human–animal relationships during the COVID-19 lockdown phase. A qualitative thematic analysis of responses was undertaken. Four main themes related to the following aspects of human–animal interactions during the COVID-19 lockdown phase were identified: the positive impact of animal ownership during the COVID-19 lockdown (e.g., amelioration of wellbeing and mental health), concerns relating to animal ownership during the COVID-19 lockdown (e.g., concerns over animals carrying the COVID-19 virus), grief and loss of an animal during the COVID-19 lockdown and the impact of engaging with non-companion animals during the COVID-19 lockdown. The findings complement and extend previous insights into the impact of human–animal interaction with both companion and non-companion animals. They also highlight the challenges of caring for an animal during the lockdown phase and indicate the need to consider the development of further targeted support strategies, such as “day care” for the companion animals of key workers in this context.

BackgroundPsychosocial person-centred interventions are considered best practice for addressing complex behaviours and care needs such as agitation and anxiety, and for improving the quality of life of people with dementia in care homes. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) is an established practice development tool and process aimed to help care home staff deliver more person-centred care. To date, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of DCM™ and have found mixed results. These results are suggested to be the outcome of intervention implementation, which may be impacted by a range of factors. This study reports the barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation in care homes found during the process evaluation conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial.MethodsEighteen of the 31 DCM™ intervention care homes were recruited to participate in the embedded process evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 participants, comprising care home managers, trained DCM™ users (mappers), expert external mappers, staff members, relatives, and residents.ResultsBarriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation were found at the mapper level (e.g. motivation and confidence), the DCM™ intervention level (e.g. understanding of DCM™) and the care home level (e.g. staffing issues, manager support). Further barriers caused by the burden of trial participation were also identified (e.g. additional paperwork).ConclusionsImplementing DCM™ is complex and a greater consideration of potential barriers and facilitators in planning future studies and in practice could help improve implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852, registered 16/01/2014.

Background The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. Design A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. Setting Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. Participants Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer’s Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. Intervention Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. Results There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was –2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval –4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. Limitations The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. Conclusions There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. Future work Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Companion animals may be a positive presence for their owners during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the welfare of a companion animal is strongly influenced by the behaviour of their owners, as well as their physical and social environment. We aimed to investigate the reported changes in companion animal welfare and behaviour and to examine the association between these changes and companion animal owners’ mental health. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020 (n = 5926). The questionnaire included validated, bespoke items measuring outcomes related to mental health, human-animal bonds and reported changes in animal welfare and behaviour. The final item of the survey invited open-ended free-text responses, allowing participants to describe experiences associated with human-animal relationships during the first UK lockdown phase. Results: Animal owners made up 89.8% of the sample (n = 5323), of whom 67.3% reported changes in their animal’s welfare and behaviour during the first lockdown phase (n = 3583). These reported changes were reduced to a positive (0–7) and negative (0–5) welfare scale, following principal component analysis (PCA) of 17 items. Participants reported more positive changes for cats, whereas more negative changes were reported for dogs. Thematic analysis identified three main themes relating to the positive and negative impact on companion animals of the Covid-19 pandemic. Generalised linear models indicated that companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores pre-lockdown reported fewer negative changes in animal welfare and behaviour. However, companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores since lockdown reported more changes, both positive and negative, in animal welfare and behaviour. Conclusion: Our findings extend previous insights into perceived welfare and behaviour changes on a very limited range of species to a wider a range of companion animals. Owner mental health status has a clear, albeit small, effect on companion animal welfare and behaviour.