Dog visits in nursing homes-increase complexity or keep it simple? A randomised controlled study
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Dog visits in nursing homes-increase complexity or keep it simple? A randomised controlled study. / Thodberg, Karen; Videbech, Poul B.; Hansen, Tia G.B.; Pedersen, Anne Bak; Christensen, Janne W.
I: PLoS ONE, Bind 16, Nr. 5, e0251571, 05.2021.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Dog visits in nursing homes-increase complexity or keep it simple? A randomised controlled study
AU - Thodberg, Karen
AU - Videbech, Poul B.
AU - Hansen, Tia G.B.
AU - Pedersen, Anne Bak
AU - Christensen, Janne W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Thodberg et al.. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Objective To compare the immediate response of nursing home residents to dog visits with or without an activity, and the impact of cognitive ability. Methods In a randomly controlled trial, 174 nursing home residents were allocated to 12 bi-weekly 10-minute visits: Either ordinary dog visits (D, n = 57, 49 analysed), dog visits with an activity (DA, n = 56, 48 analysed), or visits with activity but no dog (A, n = 61, 54 analysed). We recorded frequency and duration of residents' verbal and physical interactions with the dog and persons. Data were analysed in three periods of four visits (period 1-3) as binomial variables (generalised linear models) or durations (non-parametric statistics). Results Both visit type and impairment level affected the likelihood of interacting with the dog (D and DA). In some periods increased cognitive impairment lowered odds of touching the dog in DA visits (period 1: F1,85 = 5.17, P < 0.05) and talking to it directly (period 1: F1,90 = 4.60, P < 0.05; period 3: F1,87 = 5.34, P < 0.05). Throughout, residents talked less to persons during DA visits compared to D and A (P = 0.01-0.05), and level of cognitive impairment correlated negatively with talk duration (P < 0.001). Generally, high cognitive impairment level lowered odds of interacting with (period 1: F1,89 = 7.89, P < 0.01; period 2: F1,97 = 6.76, P = 0.01; period 3: F1,92 = 13.57, P < 0.001) and talking about the activities (period 1: F1,89 = 13.78, P <0.001; period 2: F1,88 = 3.27, P = 0.07; period 3: F1,86 = 3.88, P = 0.05). Conclusion Visits without specific activities stimulated residents to interact with the dog, whereas increasing the complexity of dog visits by adding activities resulted in less interaction with the dog for severely impaired residents. The optimal dog visit for the less cognitively impaired residents could include activities and thereby a possibility to interact with the dog in different ways, whereas for severely impaired residents, just being with the dog seems more appropriate.
AB - Objective To compare the immediate response of nursing home residents to dog visits with or without an activity, and the impact of cognitive ability. Methods In a randomly controlled trial, 174 nursing home residents were allocated to 12 bi-weekly 10-minute visits: Either ordinary dog visits (D, n = 57, 49 analysed), dog visits with an activity (DA, n = 56, 48 analysed), or visits with activity but no dog (A, n = 61, 54 analysed). We recorded frequency and duration of residents' verbal and physical interactions with the dog and persons. Data were analysed in three periods of four visits (period 1-3) as binomial variables (generalised linear models) or durations (non-parametric statistics). Results Both visit type and impairment level affected the likelihood of interacting with the dog (D and DA). In some periods increased cognitive impairment lowered odds of touching the dog in DA visits (period 1: F1,85 = 5.17, P < 0.05) and talking to it directly (period 1: F1,90 = 4.60, P < 0.05; period 3: F1,87 = 5.34, P < 0.05). Throughout, residents talked less to persons during DA visits compared to D and A (P = 0.01-0.05), and level of cognitive impairment correlated negatively with talk duration (P < 0.001). Generally, high cognitive impairment level lowered odds of interacting with (period 1: F1,89 = 7.89, P < 0.01; period 2: F1,97 = 6.76, P = 0.01; period 3: F1,92 = 13.57, P < 0.001) and talking about the activities (period 1: F1,89 = 13.78, P <0.001; period 2: F1,88 = 3.27, P = 0.07; period 3: F1,86 = 3.88, P = 0.05). Conclusion Visits without specific activities stimulated residents to interact with the dog, whereas increasing the complexity of dog visits by adding activities resulted in less interaction with the dog for severely impaired residents. The optimal dog visit for the less cognitively impaired residents could include activities and thereby a possibility to interact with the dog in different ways, whereas for severely impaired residents, just being with the dog seems more appropriate.
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0251571
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0251571
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34038451
AN - SCOPUS:85106677302
VL - 16
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 5
M1 - e0251571
ER -
ID: 282190052