Improving Engagement in Behavioral and Mental Health Services Through Animal-Assisted Interventions: A Scoping Review
Abstract
Objective:
Client engagement in behavioral and mental health services has been strongly linked to improved outcomes and treatment completion. Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly used to improve client engagement, for example, by involving a dog in therapy to support a client’s sense of safety. Although existing research suggests that human-animal interactions may promote engagement, further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms, identify procedures needed for treatment fidelity, and determine the populations in which this intervention would be most effective. The aim was to identify the existing knowledge base to inform future research and practice in these areas.
Methods:
A review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines to answer three questions: What research has been completed regarding the use of animals to affect client engagement, including measurement of potential processes of change? How have interventions that use animals been structured and protocolized? How is engagement operationally defined by these studies?
Results:
Ten studies were identified for review. Preliminary evidence indicates that AAIs may support client engagement in behavioral and mental health services. A wide range of conceptualizations in which populations and settings could benefit from AAIs were identified, but it remains unclear who would benefit most. The review did not substantively address the efficacy of AAIs for increasing engagement or factors that may drive engagement.
Conclusions:
Further research is needed to quantify the impact of AAIs on service engagement and to identify mechanisms of change.
Highlights
•
A scoping review was undertaken to determine what is known about the use of animals to affect client engagement in behavioral and mental health services and synthesize the literature pertaining to this topic.
•
Initial evidence from 10 articles selected for inclusion in this review suggests that animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) may be beneficial to client engagement in behavioral and mental health services.
•
Although a wide range of conceptualizations in which populations and settings could benefit from AAIs were identified, it remains unclear who would most benefit from AAIs, and standardized protocols for these interventions were lacking.
•
More quantitative studies are needed that use methods to examine the same type of treatment for participants with similar demographic and diagnostic profiles in order to enable quantitative meta-analyses that identify effect sizes of AAIs for increasing engagement.
Client engagement in behavioral and mental health services has been strongly linked to higher clinical functioning, improved outcomes, and treatment completion (1–3). Interventions that increase engagement and encourage clients to participate fully in treatment are likely to be a powerful tool to prevent mental illnesses and increase clinicians’ abilities to intervene at an early stage of illness. In mental health and addiction services, interventions or factors known to improve engagement include motivational interviewing (4), the client-therapist relationship (5), practitioner behaviors (6, 7), perceived usefulness of the treatment (8), and incentives such as monetary compensations (9, 10). Interest has been growing in the use of animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) in various mental and behavioral health service settings to improve client engagement. For example, a dog might be incorporated into individual therapy to provide a reassuring presence and opportunity for tactile soothing (i.e., through petting) to support a client’s sense of safety or ability to process difficult emotions. Alternatively, a session may involve client interactions with a horse to facilitate discussion of personal boundaries and communication using observation of the horse’s responses to the client or other environmental stimuli. Some research has measured the proximal and distal effects of AAIs on clinically relevant outcomes (11, 12). However, to date, no scoping review has been conducted to assess the state of the existing literature and identify research considerations in the field of engagement specific to AAIs.
AAI is defined as the intentional use of an animal to reach specified treatment goals and provide therapeutic benefits through a positive relationship between the client and the animal (13, 14). AAIs can occur in any setting, provided that one or more animals are used to reach a client’s specified treatment goals. Inclusion of animals by health or human service professionals is increasingly common and is associated with positive general medical and psychological benefits (14, 15). AAIs have been theorized to promote client engagement by enhancing the relationship between the client and the AAI practitioner, with some studies reporting increased direct social interaction between the client and practitioner in the presence of animals (16–18). Therapists who use animals in behavioral or mental health services may be perceived as less threatening, which can reduce barriers to client engagement (19), prompt clients to be more authentic and present (20, 21), boost clients’ sense of safety in the intervention space (22), and increase clients’ motivation to attend therapy sessions (23). A comprehensive, evidence-based understanding of how AAIs affect engagement in behavioral and mental health services is needed to optimize their clinical effects.
The concept of engagement is multifaceted, and different forms of engagement may be differentially affected by AAIs. Studies do not always specify which aspect of engagement is the focus of the intervention or research question. A diverse range of operational definitions and outcomes are used in existing research, and interventions target various facets of engagement (5). In this scoping review, client engagement was operationalized as a multifaceted construct that can refer to the client’s motivation, involvement, active participation, or attendance to the behavioral or mental health service that he or she is undergoing (5, 24, 25). Thus, engagement is indicated by the client actively, behaviorally, cognitively, or emotionally participating in the therapy process with the clinician or, if applicable, other participants in a service setting (2).
The purpose of this scoping review was to determine what is known about the use of animals to affect client engagement in behavioral and mental health services and synthesize the extant literature pertaining to this topic. Given that client engagement in behavioral and mental health services predicts health outcomes (1–3) and that the field of AAIs is rapidly expanding, a need exists for understanding intervention strategies that promote engagement so that evidence-based recommendations can be provided to policy makers, practitioners, and researchers to optimize their implementation. We therefore sought to identify the existing knowledge base to inform future research and practice in these areas.
Methods
Scoping review methods are most appropriate when the aim is to assess the prevalence of existing evidence or identify key concepts, or when the topic is being reviewed for the first time (26), as was the case for this review. A scoping review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research was conducted in accordance with Arksey and O’Malley’s (26) five-stage framework: identifying the review question; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. We also followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA ScR) checklist (27). These two methods were adopted for their rigorous and transparent processes, allowing for replication of the search strategy and verification of the reliability of the study findings.
Review Question
The review questions were developed through discussion among research team members engaged in human-animal interaction research and direct clinical practice. Our focus was to assess the prevalence of existing evidence of the ability of AAIs to improve engagement in behavioral and mental health services. Because AAIs are currently used as an adjunct to standard care with many age groups, diagnoses, and types of treatment, the review questions were kept intentionally broad to identify the full breadth of work being done in this area. This supported the review objective to identify initial knowledge that may be associated with the use of AAIs for client engagement to inform future research.
The following review questions were posed to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the existing scientific literature. What research has been completed regarding the use of animals to affect client engagement, including measurement of potential mechanisms or processes of change? How have interventions that use animals been structured and protocolized? How is engagement operationally defined by these studies?
Relevant Studies
We developed an a priori search strategy to widely cover the relevant literature on the key concepts related to the review questions. The review of the literature was completed over 2 months, ending in May 2019. The following electronic databases were searched: PsycINFO, EBSCOHost, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest, ERIC, JSTOR, SAGE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Wiley, Campbell Collaboration, and Cochrane. Content experts on the research team (E.F., A.G.Z.) worked in consultation with a social sciences librarian to develop a search strategy by using concepts and keywords to describe behavioral and mental health services, engagement, and AAIs. Key words were searched within three groups using the conjunction “OR,” and the groups were combined with “AND.” In line with current conceptualizations of engagement (24), the term groupings included “engagement,” “involvement,” “attendance,” “participation,” and “motivation.” AAI-related search terms included “animal-assisted,” “animal therapy,” “animal intervention,” and “animal facilitated.”
Last, mental health services were defined as the assessment and treatment of an individual or group by a professional to alleviate mental or emotional symptoms or psychiatric conditions (28). Behavioral health services were defined as the promotion of mental health, resilience, and well-being and the treatment of substance use disorders (29). Search terms included “mental health,” “therapy,” “treatment,” and “counseling.” Inclusion and exclusion criteria for this search were formulated to account for the presumed scarcity of research in this topic area while being as comprehensive as possible to aid in the identification of primary evidence pertaining to the use of AAIs to promote engagement (Table 1). A review protocol for this study is available on request from the corresponding author (K.N.M.).
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Reported primary or secondary outcome(s) related to engagement | Did not involve at least one domesticated animal or used a nondomesticated animal (i.e., wildlife) or aquatic mammals (e.g., dolphins, seals, or whales) |
| Manuscripts, dissertations, and theses | Used nonliving (i.e., robotic or stuffed) animals for any period of time |
| Participants of all ages, races, genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses | Studies describing nonbehavioral or mental health services (i.e., physical therapy, speech therapy, or occupational therapy) |
| Participants received behavioral health services (e.g., treatment for substance abuse or eating disorder), mental health services (e.g., treatment for mood, anxiety, or attention deficit disorders), or both | English version unavailable |
| Intervention incorporated an animal in the provision of a mental health service |
Study Selection
A two-stage study screening process was used. First, duplicates of articles were removed, and then a single reviewer (A.G.Z.) screened the titles and abstracts of the results, applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and removing articles that were ineligible. Next, the same reviewer reviewed the full text of the remaining articles to assess whether they met the inclusion criteria. Articles for which it remained unclear whether they met the inclusion criteria were discussed by the full team.
Data Extraction and Charting
Studies selected for inclusion were charted (26). The reviewers extracted the first author; year of publication; study design; sample size; a description of the intervention(s), characteristics, structure, and any associated protocols; and engagement outcomes measured. Findings were synthesized, documenting overlap and differences in research methods and results, intervention approaches, and definitions of engagement.
Results
Article Selection
The initial electronic search yielded 1,521 original records. After removal of 178 duplicates, title and abstract screening eliminated another 1,311 articles because the interventions did not target mental or behavioral health outcomes, live domesticated animals were not included in service provision, or no English version of the publication was available. Thirty-two articles remained for full-text screening. Of those, 22 articles were excluded because of their use of nondomesticated animals (e.g., dolphin-assisted interventions), use of nonliving animals, or lack of engagement-related outcomes. Ten articles were selected for this scoping review on the basis of the inclusion criteria. (A PRISMA diagram is available in an online supplement to this article.) Of the articles included in this review, two were published between 2000 and 2009, and eight were published between 2010 and 2019 (Table 2) (30–39).
| Study | N of study participants | Sample size and study design | AAI type | Engagement outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bach-Gorman, 2015 (30) | 9 | Phenomenological qualitative approach using semistructured interview questions, 6 field observations of therapy sessions over 6 months at a residential treatment center that offered canine-assisted therapy | One individual canine-assisted therapy session per week for 10 weeks with a trained therapy dog | Increased client engagement in the counseling process was noted through field observations; this engagement allowed participants to practice skills developed during the counseling session. |
| DePompeo, 2016 (31) | 10 | Phenomenological qualitative approach using semistructured interview questions with participants receiving counseling services at a private practice that used animal-assisted psychotherapy with canines | Animal-assisted psychotherapy with dogs, implemented by a licensed clinical psychologist at a private practice; times and duration of the intervention were not discussed. | Presence of a dog in therapy motivated clients to attend therapy and caused them to look forward to attending therapy and feel engaged in the therapeutic process. |
| Gomez, 2015 (32) | 6 | Phenomenological qualitative approach using semistructured interview questions at a mandated outpatient substance abuse group treatment setting for men who were on probation | A once-weekly animal-assisted substance abuse treatment group with a trained therapy dog | Participants had increased engagement in AAT compared with when an animal was not present, including increased personal sharing; participants also expressed a desire for more AAT sessions; this study was conducted with a population considered particularly difficult to engage in therapy because their treatment is mandated. |
| Henry and Crowley, 2015 (33) | 21 | RCT examining the effect of a MBSR group with and without the incorporation of AAT | Six weekly individual 50-minute MBSR sessions utilizing AAT with a trained therapy dog over a 6- to 9-week period | No statistically significant difference on engagement between the MBSR group and the MBSR+AAT group, as measured by the validated Session Engagement Questionnaire |
| Jasperson, 2011 (34) | 5 | Clinical case example and observations of women who were involved in an AAT group and were residents at a mental health inpatient program at a Utah state prison | Eight 1-hour weekly or biweekly AAT group sessions with a trained therapy dog | All observed participants showed increased motivation to attend therapy and reported that they looked forward to sessions; the case example client began opening up more within the AAT group therapy than she had previously done when an animal was not present. |
| Jones et al., 2019 (35) | 7 | Systematic review of the literature on broad clinical goals for canine-assisted psychotherapy that included engagement as an outcome | Goal-oriented, canine-assisted psychotherapy, with a trained therapy dog, aimed at improving mental health outcomes for adolescents | Canine-assisted psychotherapy had positive effects on engagement and prosocial behaviors during mental health treatments for adolescents ages 10–19 years. |
| Martin and Farnum, 2002 (36) | 10 | Within-participant, repeated-measures design with all participants, who were children with pervasive developmental disorders and who attended three therapy sessions including a therapist: with a ball, with a stuffed dog, or with a live dog with whom they had behavioral and verbal interactions during the session; therapy sessions were video recorded and coded. | Forty-five 15-minute therapy sessions conducted over 15 weeks with one session of each research condition happening each week; one 15-minute AAT session each week for 15 weeks; 3 live dogs were included in each therapy session. | Children in the live-dog condition were more focused and more likely to engage with the therapist in conversation about the dog, to answer the therapist’s questions, and to talk openly to the dog than in the other conditions with inanimate objects. |
| Maujean et al., 2013 (37) | 16 | Qualitative approach using semistructured interviews with disengaged, at-risk youths (preintervention and immediately postintervention) and their case managers (immediately postintervention and 6 months postintervention) | 10 weekly AAT sessions with a horse; individuals had sessions with a horse, a mentor, and case manager; weekly group discussions were held after the therapy session to discuss what skills were learned. | Case managers noticed positive improvements in clients’ engagement in many areas of their lives, most notably, attitudes and behaviors toward attending school; clients were also perceived to be more open to participating in new activities. |
| Minatrea and Wesley, 2008 (38) | 24 | RCT at residential treatment center for adults with substance misuse issues | AAT group sessions with a trained therapy dog combined with choice therapy and reality therapy | The group with the therapy dog had enhanced participants’ engagement in the therapy group and with the counselor, as measured by the clients’ rating of their therapeutic alliance. |
| Silva et al., 2011 (39) | 1 | Single case study of a 12-year-old boy diagnosed as having autism spectrum disorder, video-recorded behavioral comparison between control condition (therapist alone) and the test condition (inclusion of a therapy dog during treatment) | Fifteen-minute session for client to become familiar with the therapy dog, followed by a 45-minute, once-weekly session with a therapist accompanied by the therapy dog | Presence of a dog during one-to-one activities with the therapist was associated with increased prosocial behaviors (e.g., smiles and positive physical contact) and reduced aggression from the client. |
a
AAI, animal-assisted intervention; AAT, animal-assisted therapy; MBSR, mindfulness-based stress reduction; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Study Methods and Findings
The 10 studies had a wide range of foci and methods. The methods used to ascertain whether AAIs affected client engagement included three phenomenological qualitative analyses, two case studies with observational data, one systematic review of broad clinical goals for canine-assisted psychotherapy that included the outcome of engagement, two behavioral observation studies, and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used validated measures to assess engagement. The studies were conducted for clients ages 3–54 years who were deemed “at risk” or who were being treated for conditions including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism spectrum disorder, pervasive developmental disorders, and substance dependency; clients were treated in a wide variety of settings, including clinical therapy offices, residential treatment facilities, and prisons. Overall, the identified articles illustrated a trend in AAIs emerging as a conceptually important and effective tool to improve engagement among persons seeking behavioral or mental health services. Findings within these studies that were germane to the three review questions were identified.
What research has been completed regarding the use of animals to affect client engagement, including measurement of potential mechanisms or processes of change?
In the 10 research studies, changes in client engagement in a behavioral or mental health services when AAIs were used were measured as either the primary or secondary reported outcomes (30–39). Phenomenological qualitative data collection used in three studies consisted of 25 semistructured, in-person interviews ranging from 10 to 45 minutes (30–32) and, in one study, written reflective prompts (31). In these studies, data were analyzed with a structured modality of data analysis, such as Moustakas’ (40) transcendental phenomenological model (30, 32), or a conventional content analysis approach, as described by Hsieh and Shannon (41). The two research groups that used case study designs conducted observations and collected data before and after interventions by asking the participants to reflect on the intervention during interviews (34, 37). In one of these studies, significant statements regarding level of engagement were selected from the observations (37). One study conducted a systematic review of the use of dogs to increase adolescent engagement during psychotherapy and followed the PRISMA guidelines (35). Two studies used behavioral observation methods by videotaping AAI sessions with the clients and coding engagement behaviors during therapy sessions (36, 39). Only two studies were designed as RCTs (33, 38); one utilized the validated Session Engagement Questionnaire to measure each client’s level of engagement during an AAI (33), and the other used the Helping Alliance Questionnaire and the Session Rating Scale to measure therapeutic alliance as a proxy for client engagement (38).
Some evidence indicates that AAIs can positively affect client engagement. Studied outcomes include an observed increase in clients’ contributions to their therapeutic communities (32, 34); measured improvements to clients’ therapeutic alliance (38); increases in prosocial behaviors; active participation when interacting with a therapist (31, 34–36, 39); higher levels of motivation to attend therapy (30, 31); and improvement in clients’ engagement, attitudes, and behaviors in other, nontherapeutic activities (37). One study found no significant differences in engagement between groups with and without an AAI component (33). Several reviews noted a need for further research to identify mechanisms of change in AAIs because no agreed-upon theory of change currently exists (30–33, 35, 37). Two articles discussed potential mechanisms of change and identified these as the participant connection with the animal (32, 37), the context of where the intervention was conducted, and the staff conducting the intervention (37). No effects on the animals included in therapy were studied.
How have interventions that use animals been structured and protocolized?
The AAIs described in the 10 publications primarily used one or more dogs (30–36, 38, 39); only one study used horses (37). Several of the dogs included in these studies were accredited by a national or international therapy organization (31, 33–35, 38, 39) or had previously passed a behavioral test, such as the American Kennel Club’s Canine Good Citizen Test (31, 36). The other animals were not registered or did not have accreditation or testing status with a verified source (30, 33, 37). The structure and delivery of these AAIs in mental health service settings consisted of both individual (31, 33, 36, 37, 39) and group therapy sessions (30, 32, 34, 38). These AAI sessions occurred every 2 weeks (34), weekly (30, 33, 34, 37–39), or several times throughout the week (32, 35). For those studies that reported duration of AAI treatments, the range was between 5 and 15 weeks (30, 33, 34, 36, 37). AAIs were delivered by licensed psychologists (31, 33, 39), master’s-level clinical social workers (30), professional clinical counselors (38), and animal handlers who were trained to work with their specific animals (32, 34, 37, 39). Interactions between clients and animals were not forced by any group, and each participant was always given the option to interact or not with the animal (30–39). Intervention protocols were used in several studies that outlined specific safety guidelines for the animals and human interaction (33, 34). Protocols also discussed approved activities for which the animals in the interventions would be utilized, including general interaction activities such as petting or holding (30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39), care tasks such as grooming or nail trimming (30, 37), discussion of an animal as a model for concepts such as boundaries (34, 38), or teaching general horsemanship (37).
How is engagement operationally defined by these studies?
Engagement as a construct in the therapeutic context was discussed as being an important component to client motivation, clinical outcomes, recovery, and reduction of recidivism rates across all 10 of the reviewed studies (30–39). However, no articles precisely defined or clearly operationalized this term. Generally, the studies alluded to the construct of engagement as meaning a client’s willingness to interact with the therapist, treatment, and setting during a single therapeutic session or for the duration of their therapeutic process (30–39). Two studies associated engagement with prosocial behaviors such as talking, demonstrating affection, and showing awareness of one’s social environment (35, 36). Three studies conceptualized engagement as motivation to attend and participate in therapy (31–33). Another used the term to discuss attitudes and behaviors in other aspects of clients’ lives, such as engagement toward attending school, in addition to actions and emotional and cognitive attitudes toward the behavioral or mental health service (37).
Although almost all of the studies found that AAIs positively affected client engagement, the inconsistent and often unclear definitions of engagement, the variety of study foci and research methods, and the paucity of rigorous methodological approaches all limited the reliability of this preliminary positive conclusion. The most common finding, that AAIs increase prosocial behaviors and active participation in therapy (34–36, 39, 41), aligned with the results of one of the two RCTs, which found that AAIs improve the therapeutic alliance (38). However, the other RCT found no significant differences with or without an AAI (33), further calling into question the overall strength of the available evidence.
Discussion
There is emerging interest in the use of animals to increase client engagement in therapy, both nationally and internationally. The findings of this review confirmed that interventions and research in this area remain limited and are focused on various facets of engagement. There remains a lack of studies that have used rigorous methods that might elucidate the effects of AAIs on engagement or underlying mechanisms of change. The very modest body of work in this area suggests that the use of animals to promote engagement has been largely overlooked. This is especially apparent when compared with the extensive and growing body of AAI research. AAI studies represented in this scoping review were delivered across a range of treatment settings, including private offices, residential treatment, and prison settings. It is clear that AAIs have used multifaceted conceptualizations of engagement, in part to adapt the intervention to be well suited to different types of treatment contexts and in a wide range of clinical populations, including youths on the autism spectrum, men with substance misuse issues, and incarcerated women. Although these initial indications that AAIs may represent a highly versatile intervention to increase client engagement, it remains unclear whether true effects exist, which intervention factors may be most relevant to maximize efficacy, and whether mechanisms of change or outcomes vary for different populations. Only three studies specified which facet of engagement was their focus (31, 33, 37); as for the remaining studies, the lack of clarification regarding which aspects of engagement were their focus left unclear exactly which variables were being measured and whether accurate measurement was achieved. Future research on the topic of the potential effects of AAIs on clinical engagement should make clear which facet of engagement is the focus of the study and how it is operationalized to reduce ambiguity in the findings.
That most interventions used dogs, with horses being the only other animal incorporated, may be related to a lower cost and fewer infrastructure requirements associated with dogs. This preference for dogs and horses is reflected in other AAI literature that commonly references use of these species but overlooks other companion animals (e.g., guinea pigs) that may also be well suited to this type of intervention. However, the studies lacked detailed information about intervention protocols, animal selection, handler and animal certifications, implementation considerations, indications and contraindications for clients who may be candidates for AAIs, animal welfare considerations, and safety precautions. This raises important questions regarding the ability of practitioners to implement these interventions ethically and with fidelity. This field of research would benefit greatly from future research providing greater specificity on these elements of AAIs, including clear protocols and guidelines for practice that promotes both human and animal welfare.
This review was limited by the amount and quality of the research available and by its focus on only studies available in English. The scoping literature review method did not include analyses of data quality or effect sizes (i.e., meta-analyses) and therefore did not substantively address the efficacy of AAIs for increasing engagement or factors that may drive this potential effect. Despite these limitations, the findings of this review suggest that AAIs may be a versatile approach to increasing client engagement for a wide range of client populations, but more research and better protocolization of these interventions are needed.
Conclusions
The findings of this review indicate that dogs were most commonly incorporated into AAIs, followed by horses. Preliminary anecdotal and observational evidence suggests that AAI benefit client engagement during a behavioral or mental health service visit. However, these findings should be viewed with caution, because it remains unclear for which clients the inclusion of animals may or may not be beneficial and why.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202000585.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 36.20 KB
References
1.
Bamberger KT, Coatsworth JD, Fosco GM, et al: Change in participant engagement during a family-based preventive intervention: ups and downs with time and tension. J Fam Psychol 2014; 28:811–820
2.
Hock R, Priester MA, Iachini AL, et al: A review of family engagement measures for adolescent substance use services. J Child Fam Stud 2015; 24:3700–3710
3.
Lees D, Procter N, Fassett D: Therapeutic engagement between consumers in suicidal crisis and mental health nurses. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2014; 23:306–315
4.
Carroll KM, Ball SA, Nich C, et al: Motivational interviewing to improve treatment engagement and outcome in individuals seeking treatment for substance abuse: a multisite effectiveness study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 81:301–312
5.
Lindsey MA, Brandt NE, Becker KD, et al: Identifying the common elements of treatment engagement interventions in children’s mental health services. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2014; 17:283–298
6.
Santisteban DA, Szapocznik J: Bridging theory, research and practice to more successfully engage substance abusing youth and their families into therapy. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse 1994; 3:9–24
7.
Staudt M: Treatment engagement with caregivers of at-risk children: gaps in research and conceptualization. J Child Fam Stud 2007; 16:183–196
8.
Fiorentine R, Nakashima J, Anglin MD: Client engagement in drug treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat 1999; 17:199–206
9.
Stanley IH, Chu C, Brown TA, et al: Improved clinical functioning for patients receiving fee discounts that reward treatment engagement. J Clin Psychol 2016; 72:15–21
10.
Wall J, Mhurchu CN, Blakely T, et al: Effectiveness of monetary incentives in modifying dietary behavior: a review of randomized, controlled trials. Nutr Rev 2006; 64:518–531
11.
Flynn E, Roguski J, Wolf J, et al: A randomized controlled trial of animal-assisted therapy as an adjunct to intensive family preservation services. Child Maltreat 2019; 24:161–168
12.
Schneider MS, Harley LP: How dogs influence the evaluation of psychotherapists. Anthrozoos 2006; 19:128–142
13.
Davis TN, Scalzo R, Butler E, et al: Animal assisted interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 2015; 5:316–329
14.
Maujean A, Pepping CA, Kendall E: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of animal-assisted therapy on psychosocial outcomes. Anthrozoos 2015; 28:23–26
15.
Bert F, Gualano MR, Camussi E, et al: Animal assisted intervention: a systematic review of benefits and risks. Eur J Integr Med 2016; 8:695–706
16.
Corson SA, Corson E’L, Gwynne PH, et al: Pet dogs as nonverbal communication links in hospital psychiatry. Compr Psychiatry 1977; 18:61–72
17.
Flynn E, Gandenberger J, Mueller MK, et al: Animal-assisted intervention as an adjunct to therapy for youth: clinician perspectives. Child Adolesc Social Work J 2020; 37:631–642
18.
McNicholas J, Collis GM: Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: robustness of the effect. Br J Psychol 2000; 91:61–70
19.
Balluerka N, Muela A, Amiano N, et al: Influence of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) on the attachment representations of youth in residential care. Child Youth Serv Rev 2014; 42:103–109
20.
Fine AH (ed): Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Foundations and Guidelines for Animal-Assisted Interventions. Cambridge, MA, Academic Press, 2015
21.
Kruger KA, Trachtenberg SW, Serpell JA: Can Animals Help Humans Heal? Animal-Assisted Interventions in Adolescent Mental Health. Philadelphia, Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society (CIAS) and University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, 2004. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Serpell/publication/234839772_Can_Animals_Help_Humans_Heal_Animal-Assisted_Interventions_in_Adolescent_Mental_Health/links/0fcfd5101857ca16bd000000.pdf
22.
Hoagwood KE, Acri M, Morrissey M, et al: Animal-assisted therapies for youth with or at risk for mental health problems: a systematic review. Appl Dev Sci 2017; 21:1–13
23.
Lange AM, Cox JA, Bernert DJ, et al: Is counseling going to the dogs? An exploratory study related to the inclusion of an animal in group counseling with adolescents. J Creativity Ment Health 2007; 2:17–31
24.
Morris E, Fitzpatrick MR, Renaud J: A pan-theoretical conceptualization of client involvement in psychotherapy. Psychother Res 2016; 26:70–84
25.
Tetley A, Jinks M, Huband N, et al: A systematic review of measures of therapeutic engagement in psychosocial and psychological treatment. J Clin Psychol 2011; 67:927–941
26.
Arksey H, O’Malley L: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8:19–32
27.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al: PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169:467–473
28.
Mental Health Services in General Health Care: Volume 1: Conference Report: Summary of the Invitational Conference on the Provision of Mental Health Services in Primary Care Settings. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine, Division of Mental Health and Behavioral Medicine, 1979, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222783/
29.
SAMHSA—Behavioral Health Integration. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, n.d., www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/samhsa-behavioral-health-integration.pdf
30.
Bach-Gorman AR: Capturing the Essence of Canine Animal-Assisted Therapy in Counseling: A Phenomenological Inquiry of At-Risk Youths’ Experiences of a Residential Canine Animal-Assisted Therapy Program. Fargo, North Dakota State University, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/10365/24887
31.
DePompeo LR: Animal-Assisted Psychotherapy With Canines: Client’s Perceptions and Therapeutic Experiences. Chicago, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 2016. https://www.proquest.com/openview/ae4f487b2626fd6e3583e9f0f013b4dc
32.
Gomez EN: A Qualitative Study of Animal Assisted Therapy With Male Probationers Mandated to Outpatient Substance Abuse Group Treatment. San Francisco, California Institute of Integral Studies, 2015. https://www.proquest.com/openview/eced55c23375b4a5e85386aad1b3854e/1
33.
Henry CL, Crowley SL: The psychological and physiological effects of using a therapy dog in mindfulness training. Anthrozoos 2015; 28:385–402
34.
Jasperson RA: Therapeutic Interventions and Animal Assisted Therapy With Incarcerated Females. Salt Lake City, University of Utah College of Social Work, 2011. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/276266031.pdf
35.
Jones MG, Rice SM, Cotton SM: Incorporating animal-assisted therapy in mental health treatments for adolescents: a systematic review of canine assisted psychotherapy. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0210761
36.
Martin F, Farnum J: Animal-assisted therapy for children with pervasive developmental disorders. West J Nurs Res 2002; 24:657–670
37.
Maujean A, Kendall E, Lillan R, et al: Connecting for health: playing with horses as a therapeutic tool. J Community Psychol 2013; 41:515–522
38.
Minatrea NB, Wesley MC: Reality therapy goes to the dogs. Int J Real Ther 2008; 28:69–77
39.
Silva K, Correia R, Lima M, et al: Can dogs prime autistic children for therapy? Evidence from a single case study. J Altern Complement Med 2011; 17:655–659
40.
Moustakas C: Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1994
41.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15:1277–1288
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 31 July 2020
Revision received: 23 February 2021
Accepted: 9 April 2021
Published online: 23 June 2021
Published in print: February 01, 2022
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
Funding for this study was provided through the University of Denver. Additionally, this work was supported by a gift from an anonymous donor to the University of Denver, Graduate School of Social Work, Institute for Human-Animal Connection to support fellowships.
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).