A meta-analysis of Animal Assisted Interventions targeting pain, anxiety and distress in medical settings
A meta-analysis of Animal Assisted Interventions targeting pain, anxiety and distress in medical settings
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.07.006
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
O'Brien, William
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Waite, Tabitha C.;Hamilton, Lindsay;O'Brien, William
目的：研究表明，动物辅助干预（AAI）减少了医疗环境中的负面结果，但缺乏对其对医疗结果（如疼痛、焦虑和痛苦）影响的定量检查。设计：对22项研究（13项儿童研究，9项成人研究）进行综合文献检索和meta分析，纳入标准。使用随机效应模型计算干预与对照组和干预前后的效应大小。结果：总体干预相对于对照组的效应量较大且显著（d = 1.65, 95% CI = 0.46-2.832）。同样，前后效应量也很大且显著（d = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.74-3.64）。结论：本荟萃分析的结果表明，AAI可以在许多医学相关的结果中产生很大的影响。然而，各研究的方法学差异很大，需要更多的随机临床试验和更强的方法学对照来确定与其他干预措施相比，AAI的有效性。
Objectives: Research suggests Animal Assisted Interventions (AAI) reduce negative outcomes in medical settings, but quantitative examinations of their effects on medical outcomes such as pain, anxiety, and distress are lacking.Design: A comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis were conducted in which 22 studies (13 child, 9 adult) ma inclusion criteria. Both intervention versus control and intervention pre-post effect sizes were computed using a random effects model.Results: The overall intervention versus control effect size was large and significant (d = 1.65, 95% CI = 0.46-2.832). Similarly, the pre-post effect size was large and significant (d = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.74-3.64).Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that AAI can yield large effects across a number of medically relevant outcomes. There is, however, substantial methodological variation across studies and more randomized clinical trials with stronger methodological controls are needed to establish the effectiveness of AAI compared to other interventions.