Effects of dog-assisted therapy in adults with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundDog-assisted therapy (DAT) is a non-pharmacological intervention based on the interaction between patients and dogs, which has been proposed to help adults with dementia. However, evidence to support it is lacking. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effects of DAT on this population and to assess the certainty of the evidence of the RCTs estimates.MethodsA systematic search was performed. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) controlled studies published up to March 2018, which evaluated the beneficial and deleterious effects of DAT in adults with dementia. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated and random effects meta-analyses were performed. Certainty of evidence was assessed for RCTs estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018090434).ResultsTen studies (six RCTs and four QE controlled studies) were eligible for inclusion. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed no effect of DAT in daily life activities (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: -0.80 to 1.12), depression (SMD: -0.45; 95% CI: -2.81 to 1.91), agitation (SDM: -1.12; 95% CI: -2.67 to 0.43), quality of life (SDM: 0.16; 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.73), and cognitive impairment (SDM: -0.52; 95% CI: -1.33 to 0.30), but it found a beneficial effect in apathy (1 study, n = 37, MD: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.26 to 2.36). All outcomes had a very low certainty of evidence according to GRADE methodology.ConclusionsRCTs evidence of very low certainty suggests that, in adults with dementia, DAT has no effect in daily life activities, depression, agitation, quality of life, and cognitive impairment, although one small study found an apparent beneficial effect in apathy. More well-designed and correctly reported studies are needed in order to provide a conclusion.Trial registrationCRD42018090434 (PROSPERO).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-2009-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Effectiveness of Non‐Pharmacological Interventions on Apathy in Patients With Dementia: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

“…Two systematic reviews of systematic reviews (Abraha et al, 2017;Vilela, Pacheco, Latorraca, Pachito, & Riera, 2017) reveal that non-pharmacological interventions have positive effects on reducing BPSD, improving cognitive function, activities of daily living, and social interaction ability of patients with dementia. For apathy, there are several systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Brodaty & Burns, 2012;Fukushima et al, 2016;Goris, Ansel, & Schutte, 2016;Lane-Brown & Tate, 2009;Theleritis, Siarkos, Katirtzoglou, & Politis, 2016;Theleritis, Siarkos, Politis, Katirtzoglou, & Politis, 2018;Tsoi et al, 2018;Verkaik, Weert, & Francke, 2005;Zafra-Tanaka, Pacheco-Barrios, Tellez, & Taype-Rondan, 2019) of non-pharmacological interventions in patients with dementia. Nevertheless, these reviews involve diversified non-pharmacological interventions and lack evaluation of methodological quality and classification of evidence quality.…”

Dog-Assisted Therapy in Neurorehabilitation of Children with Severe Neurological Impairment: An Explorative Study

“…However, the goals for DAT documented in this project are congruent with the current literature about effects of DAT across different patient groups and indications, 9,10,26 although not all studies show effects. 27 The documentation of the involved therapists after each session revealed that the most frequent goal realization was achieved in social, emotional, and psychological functioning. Having fun, establishing contact and communication, social and emotional competences, relaxation and attention were most successfully stimulated during DAT.…”

Non-invasive neuromodulation effects on painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This tool considered three possible scores for each item from 0 to 2; 0 for not reported information, 1 for the information reported inadequately, and 2 for well-reported information. We considered for the overall risk of bias assessment that high risk of bias is indicated by scores less than 16 points, and low risk of bias indicated by 16 to 24 points, similar to previous studies 81,82 . Any disagreement was solved through discussion between the reviewers (KP-B and HZ).…”