Search

Abstract The involvement of animals to assist or facilitate activities, education, or therapy has become increasingly popular. As we recognize animals’ roles in ameliorating well-being and educational outcomes, researchers and programmers are developing a variety of animal-assisted programs. This diversification has seen the adoption of a plethora of terms and acronyms. Many researchers have pointed out this over-abundance of terms and their inconsistent use, arguing that this creates confusion within the field. The aims of this article were threefold: (1) To identify commonly used terms in animal-assisted intervention (AAI) research; (2) to document their use by frequency; and (3) discuss the benefits and obstacles of the abundance of terms and acronyms in the field. A search of peer-reviewed articles published in English from 2013 to 2023 was conducted across four databases: PsycInfo, Education Source, ERIC, and Scopus to collate articles related to human-animal interactions (HAIs). Records were de-duplicated in Covidence and screened at title/abstract level by two independent reviewers for relevance to AAIs. The resulting articles (N = 1934) were subsequently coded to track terminology. A total of 1414 distinct terms were identified, the majority of which (77.8%, n = 1100) were used only once between 2013 and 2023. Only 48 terms (3.4%) were used in the literature more than 10 times. Analysis also provided insight into frequently used terms, the most prevalent of which were “animal-assisted therapy” (8.70%, used 376 times), “animal-assisted interventions” (7.45%, used 322 times), and “therapy dog” (5.06%, used 219 times). Trends across 10 years reveal that specific terms have increased (e.g., “animal-assisted intervention”) or decreased (e.g., “hippotherapy”) in popularity but that the average number of terms used per article remains stable. Despite calls from HAI researchers to reduce redundant terms and improve the accuracy and consistency in the language used, there remains a surplus of terms in the field. This holds implications for AAI researchers, programmers, and individuals gaining interest in AAIs.

Abstract On-campus canine-assisted interventions (CAIs) provide opportunities for college students to interact with therapy dog-handler teams and are considered a low-cost and low-barrier way for students to reduce their stress and bolster their well-being. Across studies, we see participant samples comprised predominantly of women participants. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of a 20-min CAI on the well-being of women (n = 80), men (n = 54), and gender-diverse (n = 28; i.e., non-binary, genderfluid, and two-spirit) participants. Across all gender conditions, significant pre-to-post increases in well-being (i.e., campus connectedness, happiness, positive affect, or optimism) and decreases in ill-being (i.e., homesickness, loneliness, negative affect, anxiety, or stress) were found. Controlling for pre-test scores, there was no significant effect of gender on any of the well-being or ill-being. Findings corroborate previous research attesting to the efficacy of CAIs in enhancing the social and emotional well-being of students and suggest that CAIs are equally effective across participants of varied genders.

Abstract The field of human-animal interaction (HAI) has experienced prolific growth in the scope, breadth, and rigor of research conducted on animal-assisted interventions (AAIs). As knowledge regarding the preliminary efficacy of AAIs on outcomes of human health and wellbeing continues to accumulate, so has information regarding the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of AAIs. This progression, combined with an increase in funding opportunities, institutional resources, and growing recognition of the field from mental and medical health professionals, has led to more widespread implementation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field. While conducting RCTs in any field of study is an intensive and complex undertaking, researchers conducting RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of AAIs are faced with unique considerations. The goal of this manuscript is to discuss these complexities and considerations surrounding conducting an RCT of an AAI program in regard to study planning, conceptualization, design, implementation, and dissemination. We highlight common confounders in HAI research and provide strategies for minimizing or ameliorating them. Recommendations pertain to such unique issues as ethical considerations, theory, control and comparison groups, sampling, implementation fidelity, and transparent reporting of findings. These considerations and recommendations seek to aid HAI researchers in the design, implementation, and dissemination of future RCTs to continue to advance the rigor of the field.