The aim of this mixed methods review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. More specifically the review questions are: 1) What are the experiences of older people residing in long-term care who receive CAIs? 2) What are the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs to older adults (such as family and friends of the residents, healthcare workers and volunteers) regarding CAIs for older people residing in long-term care facilities? 3) What is the effectiveness of CAIs on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care facilities

Apostolo, Joao

Carrier, Judith

Godfrey, Christina

Kirkpatrick, Pamela

Lizarondo, Lucylynn

Loveday, Heather

Rieger, Kendra

Salmond, Susan

Stern, Cindy

JBI Evidence Synthesis

English

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. INTRODUCTION: Canine-assisted interventions are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being, and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the previous five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive canine-assisted interventions. For the quantitative component, canine-assisted interventions will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions, or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological, and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving canine-assisted interventions, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering canine-assisted interventions, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered. METHODS: A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be undertaken by two independent reviewers following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020161235

Ap�stolo, Jo�o

Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University

Impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE:To synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. INTRODUCTION:Canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the last five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted. INCLUSION CRITERIA:This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive CAIs. For the quantitative component, CAIs will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving CAIs, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered. METHODS:A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other various resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction and data synthesis will be undertaken following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews

Online Research @ Cardiff

Experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care

Objective: 

The objective of this review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care.



Introduction: 

Canine-assisted interventions are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being, and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the previous five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted.



Inclusion criteria: 

This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive canine-assisted interventions. For the quantitative component, canine-assisted interventions will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions, or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological, and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving canine-assisted interventions, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering canine-assisted interventions, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered.



Methods: 

A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be undertaken by two independent reviewers following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews

UWL Repository

Impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the impact of canine-assisted interventions on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care. INTRODUCTION:Canine-assisted interventions are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being, and are often implemented in long-term care facilities. The number of studies undertaken in this area has increased substantially over the previous five years; therefore, an update of two previous systematic reviews is warranted. INCLUSION CRITERIA:This review will consider older people who reside in long-term care facilities and who receive canine-assisted interventions. For the quantitative component, canine-assisted interventions will be compared to usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions, or no interventions, and outcomes will be grouped under the following headings: biological, psychological, and social. For the qualitative component, the experiences of older people receiving canine-assisted interventions, as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering canine-assisted interventions, will be explored. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published from 2009 to the present will be considered. METHODS:A search of 10 bibliographic databases and other resources for published and unpublished English language studies will be undertaken. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be undertaken by two independent reviewers following the segregated JBI approach to mixed methods reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO CRD42020161235.Cindy Stern, Lucylynn Lizarondo, Judith Carrier, Christina Godfrey, Kendra Rieger, Susan Salmond, João Apóstolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Heather Loveda

Stern, C.

Lizarondo, L.

Carrier, J.

Godfrey, C.

Rieger, K.

Salmond, S.

Apóstolo, J.

Kirkpatrick, P.

Loveday, H.

Adelaide Research &amp; Scholarship

STERN, C., LIZARONDO, L., CARRIER, J., GODFREY, C., RIEGER, K., SALMOND, S., APOSTOLO, J., KIRKPATRICK, P. and LOVEDAY, H. [2020]. The experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. [Protocol]. PROSPERO [online], item number CRD42020161235. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020161235   The experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term care: a mixed methods systematic review protocol. STERN, C., LIZARONDO, L., CARRIER, J., GODFREY, C., RIEGER, K., SALMOND, S., APOSTOLO, J., KIRKPATRICK, P. and LOVEDAY, H. 2020 This document was downloaded from https://openair.rgu.ac.uk  PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsThe experiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the healthand well-being of older people residing in long-term care: A mixed methods systematicreview protocolCindy Stern, Lucylynn Lizarondo, Judith Carrier, Christina Godfrey, Kendra Rieger, Susan Salmond, JoaoApostolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Heather LovedayTo enable PROSPERO to focus on COVID-19 registrations during the 2020 pandemic, this registrationrecord was automatically published exactly as submitted. The PROSPERO team has not checked eligibility. CitationCindy Stern, Lucylynn Lizarondo, Judith Carrier, Christina Godfrey, Kendra Rieger, SusanSalmond, Joao Apostolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Heather Loveday. The experiences andeffectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of older peopleresiding in long-term care: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. PROSPERO 2020CRD42020161235 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020161235 Review questionThe aim of this mixed methods review is to synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on theexperiences and effectiveness of canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) on the health and well-being of olderpeople residing in long-term care. More specifically the review questions are: • What are the experiences of older people residing in long-term care who receive CAIs? • What are the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs to older adults (such as familyand friends of the residents, healthcare workers and volunteers) regarding CAIs for older people residing inlong-term care facilities?• What is the effectiveness of CAIs on the health and well-being of older people residing in long-term carefacilities? SearchesThe search strategy will aim to find both published and unpublished studies. Studies published in English willbe included. Studies published from April 2009 to the present will be included as this is an update of twoprevious systematic reviews. Search strategyhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/161235_STRATEGY_20191205.pdf Types of study to be includedThis review will consider quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Quantitative studies will includeexperimental and quasi-experimental study designs, analytical observational studies, analytical cross-sectional studies and descriptive observational study designs. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will beconsidered as the primary focus however in their absence other research designs will be considered.Qualitative studies will include designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, qualitativedescription, action research and feminist research. Mixed method studies will be considered if data from thequantitative or qualitative components can be clearly extracted. Condition or domain being studiedAnimal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are commonly used as an adjunct therapy to enhance health and well-being. They can be delivered one-on-one or in group formats with a range of animals being used. Onepopulation and setting where AAIs are used is with older people in long-term care facilities. With anincreasingly ageing population there is a demand for high quality long-term care. Additionally once a person                               Page: 1 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsenters a care facility, increases in physical and psychosocial morbidities can occur. Animal-assistedinterventions may be able to play a role in improving health and well-being of residents for example byreducing depression and improving quality of life. This type of intervention seems particularly relevant toolder people living in long-term care facilities as human animal-interactions are not dependent on a high levelof cognitive function nor high physical and functioning ability Participants/populationThe review will consider studies that include older people (60 years and older) who reside in long-term carefacilities and who receive CAIs. Studies that contain people younger than 60 will be included as long as themean age is 60. There will be no exclusions based on medical conditions or co-morbidities. Additionally for the qualitative component, the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIsto older adults such as family and friends of the residents, healthcare workers and volunteers will also beconsidered Intervention(s), exposure(s)The quantitative component of the review will consider studies that evaluate CAIs. Interventions will begrouped as either canine-assisted activities (CAAs) or canine-assisted therapies (CATs). For the purpose ofthis review definitions will be based on those provided by the American Veterinary Medical Associations.5Canine-assisted activities “provide opportunities for motivational, educational, and/or recreational benefits toenhance quality of life.”5para7 Canine-assisted therapies are “a goal directed intervention directed and/ordelivered by a health/human service professional with specialised expertise, and within the scope of practiceof his/her profession.”5para5 Canine-assisted education will not be considered since this intervention israrely measured in studies in this area. There will be no limitations to the duration of interventions or therequired follow-up. Comparator(s)/controlThe quantitative component of the review will consider studies that compare the intervention to usual care,alternative therapeutic interventions or no intervention. Main outcome(s)The quantitative component of this review will consider studies that include outcomes related to health andwell-being including but not limited to: loneliness, depression, anxiety, well-being, quality of life, mood,satisfaction, morale, self-esteem, activity participation/involvement, activities of daily living, blood pressure,and social interaction. Where possible review outcomes will be grouped under the biopsychosocial model.Outcomes can be measured using any validated instrument, via observation or by self?report.The qualitative component of this review will consider studies that investigate the experiences of olderpeople receiving the CAIs as well as the views of people directly or indirectly involved in delivering CAIs tothem such as family and friends of the residents, healthcare workers and volunteers.* Measures of effectOutcomes will be measured during or immediately after the intervention or at a follow?up period. Additional outcome(s)None* Measures of effectNone Data extraction (selection and coding)For the quantitative component, data will be extracted from quantitative and mixed methods (quantitativecomponent only) studies included in the review by two independent reviewers using the standardized JoannaBriggs Institute data extraction tool in JBI SUMARI.33 The data extracted will include specific details aboutthe populations, study methods, interventions, and outcomes of significance to the review objective. For the qualitative component, data will be extracted from qualitative and mixed methods (qualitative                               Page: 2 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewscomponent only) studies included in the review by two independent reviewers using the standardized JoannaBriggs Institute data extraction tool in JBI SUMARI34 The data extracted will include specific details aboutthe population, context, culture, geographical location, study methods and the phenomena of interestrelevant to the review objective. Findings, and their illustrations will be extracted and assigned a level ofcredibility using the JBI ranking scale available through JBI SUMARI. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a thirdreviewer. Authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required. Risk of bias (quality) assessmentQuantitative papers (and quantitative component of mixed methods papers) selected for retrieval will beassessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review usingstandardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI SUMARI based on study design e.g. RCT, quasi-experimental studies etc.33Qualitative papers (and qualitative component of mixed methods papers) selected for retrieval will beassessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using thestandard JBI critical appraisal checklist for Qualitative Research available in JBI SUMARI.34Authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or additional data for clarification, where required. Anydisagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.The results of critical appraisal will be reported in narrative form and in a table.All studies, regardless of the results of their methodological quality, will undergo data extraction andsynthesis (where possible) and the impact of methodological quality will be considered when developingconclusions and recommendations for practice.  Strategy for data synthesisThis review will follow a convergent segregated approach to synthesis and integration according to the JBImethodology for MMSR. Quantitative synthesisStudies will, where possible, be pooled with statistical meta-analysis. Effect sizes will be expressed as eitherodds ratios (for dichotomous data) or weighted (or standardized) final post-intervention mean differences (forcontinuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will beassessed statistically using the standard chi squared and I² tests. The choice of model (random or fixedeffects) and method for meta-analysis will be based on the guidance by Tufunaru et al. Where statisticalpooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid indata presentation. A funnel plot will be generated to assess publication bias if there are 10 or more studiesincluded in a meta-analysis. Statistical tests for funnel plot asymmetry (e.g Egger test) will be performedwhere appropriate. Qualitative synthesisQualitative research findings will, where possible be pooled using the meta-aggregation approach. This willinvolve the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of statements that represent thataggregation, through assembling the findings and categorizing these findings based on similarity in meaning.These categories are then subjected to a synthesis to produce a comprehensive set of synthesized findingsthat can be used as a basis for evidence-based practice. Where textual pooling is not possible the findingswill be presented in narrative form.The findings of each single method synthesis included in this review will then be configured according to theJBI methodology for MMSR. This will involve quantitative evidence and qualitative evidence beingjuxtaposed together and organized into a line of argument to produce an overall configured analysis. Whereconfiguration is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form.                                Page: 3 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsAnalysis of subgroups or subsetsSubgroup analyses will be conducted where there is sufficient data to investigate CATs and CAAs andmorbidities. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to test decisions made regarding methodological quality. Contact details for further informationCindy Sterncindy.stern@adelaide.edu.au Organisational affiliation of the reviewThe Joanna Briggs Institutehttps://joannabriggs.org/ Review team members and their organisational affiliationsDr Cindy Stern. The Joanna Briggs InstituteDr Lucylynn Lizarondo. The Joanna Briggs InstituteDr Judith Carrier. Cardiff UniversityAssistant/Associate Professor Christina Godfrey. Queen's UniversityAssistant/Associate Professor Kendra Rieger. University of ManitobaProfessor Susan Salmond. The State University of New JerseyAssistant/Associate Professor Joao Apostolo. Escola Superior de Enfermagem de CoimbraMs Pamela Kirkpatrick. Robert Gordon UniversityProfessor Heather Loveday. University of West London, London Type and method of reviewSystematic review Anticipated or actual start date01 December 2019 Anticipated completion date31 December 2020 Funding sources/sponsorsAuthor (CS) received an Academic Women's Research Excellence Award from the University of Adelaide tosupport the update of the original reviews. The funders have no role in the review process. Conflicts of interest LanguageEnglish CountryAustralia Stage of reviewReview Ongoing Subject index terms statusSubject indexing assigned by CRD Subject index termsMeSH headings have not been applied to this record Date of registration in PROSPERO14 July 2020 Date of first submission05 December 2019                                Page: 4 / 5PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsDetails of any existing review of the same topic by the same authorsUpdate of two previous reviews by one of the authors:Stern C, Konno R. JBI Libr Syst Rev 2011; 9(6): 146-206.Stern C. JBI Libr Syst Rev 2011; 9(21): 727-790 Stage of review at time of this submission Stage Started CompletedPreliminary searches Yes NoPiloting of the study selection process No NoFormal screening of search results against eligibility criteria No NoData extraction No NoRisk of bias (quality) assessment No NoData analysis No NoThe record owner confirms that the information they have supplied for this submission is accurate andcomplete and they understand that deliberate provision of inaccurate information or omission of data may beconstrued as scientific misconduct.The record owner confirms that they will update the status of the review when it is completed and will addpublication details in due course. Versions14 July 2020 PROSPEROThis information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in goodfaith and registered the review in PROSPERO. The registrant confirms that the information supplied for this submissionis accurate and complete. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, anyassociated files or external websites. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)                               Page: 5 / 5