Acceptability of AAI from the Perspective of Elderly Clients, Family Members, and Staff—A Pilot Study

Abstract

Although animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly part of comprehensive rehabilitation and many of its effects are already well described, the methodology for performing AAI depends on the specific patient, animal, and treatment objective. Acceptability of AAI from all involved members is a little explored area. Thus, 214 respondents (32 AAI clients, 146 family members, and 36 healthcare and social care workers; 98 males, 116 females; mean age 46.3 years (±16.5 SD)) completed a list of statements focused on AAI with a dog. This list was distributed directly in nursing homes, retirement homes, and in households with home hospice care. All statements were rated on a Likert scale of 0–3. The results show that AAI is generally very well received, with over 90% of respondents considering AAI to be beneficial. The perception of AAI and trusting the handler with their dog was evaluated very positively, as well as possible concerns about hygiene. The results were in many cases affected by demographic factors of the respondents (age, gender, role in AAI, education, and size of settlement). It seems appropriate in future studies to focus on the attitude of individual groups, and thus advance the methodology of implementing AAI.

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

“…Healthcare settings were mostly hospitals or medical centres, seven of which involved children’s hospitals or paediatric wards (one of which was a psychiatric ward for adolescents) [ 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 46 ]. Two studies specify community care/hospice [ 40 , 42 ]. Apart from the two latter studies, all studies at least implied assessment of nurses and physicians (thirteen explicitly mentioned this).…”

“…All studies indicate positive perception or experience of AAA. In particular, and irrespective of whether AAA was primarily directed towards staff or patients, there was agreement that AAA was beneficial against stress [ 38 – 40 , 42 – 44 ]. In some studies, staff members expressed excitement about the opportunity to interact with dogs [ 39 , 44 ].…”

“…In some studies, staff members expressed excitement about the opportunity to interact with dogs [ 39 , 44 ]. As examples of widespread agreeableness with AAA: Caton et al (2021) find over 90% of staff participants acknowledged a positive impact on staff morale, program satisfaction, and stress reduction and 96% expressed a desire for the program to continue [ 38 ]; Pruskowski et al (2020) find 95% of rehabilitation staff consider their mood is better [ 39 ]; Machova et al (2020) find 92% of staff participants consider that the dogs provide them with emotional support [ 40 ]; Wagner et al (2019) find 100% of staff participants had positive feelings about the cats and 84% reported a positive impact on their work satisfaction [ 27 ]; Uglow et al (2019) find 100% of staff participants consider AAA to be very worthwhile [ 41 ]. The lowest observed agreement or benefit of AAA was still 54% in the study by Caprilli et al (2006) [ 46 ].…”

“…This is not to say that these are the only studies that asked about negative experiences or concerns. For instance, Machova et al (2020) found no concerns regarding contamination of beds or rooms and this study was conducted in a nursing/retirement home and home hospices following AAA visits [ 40 ].…”