-
Something wrong with this record ?
Acceptability of AAI from the Perspective of Elderly Clients, Family Members, and Staff-A Pilot Study
K. Machová, R. Procházková, P. Konigová, I. Svobodová, L. Přibylová, M. Vadroňová,
Language English Country Switzerland
Document type Journal Article
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 2004
PubMed Central
from 2005
Europe PubMed Central
from 2005
ProQuest Central
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2004-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2005-01-01
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2008-12-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2004
- MeSH
- Hygiene MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Nursing Homes MeSH
- Pilot Projects MeSH
- Dogs MeSH
- Family * MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Home Care Services * MeSH
- Animal Assisted Therapy * MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Dogs MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
Although animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly part of comprehensive rehabilitation and many of its effects are already well described, the methodology for performing AAI depends on the specific patient, animal, and treatment objective. Acceptability of AAI from all involved members is a little explored area. Thus, 214 respondents (32 AAI clients, 146 family members, and 36 healthcare and social care workers; 98 males, 116 females; mean age 46.3 years (±16.5 SD)) completed a list of statements focused on AAI with a dog. This list was distributed directly in nursing homes, retirement homes, and in households with home hospice care. All statements were rated on a Likert scale of 0-3. The results show that AAI is generally very well received, with over 90% of respondents considering AAI to be beneficial. The perception of AAI and trusting the handler with their dog was evaluated very positively, as well as possible concerns about hygiene. The results were in many cases affected by demographic factors of the respondents (age, gender, role in AAI, education, and size of settlement). It seems appropriate in future studies to focus on the attitude of individual groups, and thus advance the methodology of implementing AAI.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc20027933
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210114152632.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210105s2020 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.3390/ijerph17165978 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32824637
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Machová, Kristýna $u Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Acceptability of AAI from the Perspective of Elderly Clients, Family Members, and Staff-A Pilot Study / $c K. Machová, R. Procházková, P. Konigová, I. Svobodová, L. Přibylová, M. Vadroňová,
- 520 9_
- $a Although animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) are increasingly part of comprehensive rehabilitation and many of its effects are already well described, the methodology for performing AAI depends on the specific patient, animal, and treatment objective. Acceptability of AAI from all involved members is a little explored area. Thus, 214 respondents (32 AAI clients, 146 family members, and 36 healthcare and social care workers; 98 males, 116 females; mean age 46.3 years (±16.5 SD)) completed a list of statements focused on AAI with a dog. This list was distributed directly in nursing homes, retirement homes, and in households with home hospice care. All statements were rated on a Likert scale of 0-3. The results show that AAI is generally very well received, with over 90% of respondents considering AAI to be beneficial. The perception of AAI and trusting the handler with their dog was evaluated very positively, as well as possible concerns about hygiene. The results were in many cases affected by demographic factors of the respondents (age, gender, role in AAI, education, and size of settlement). It seems appropriate in future studies to focus on the attitude of individual groups, and thus advance the methodology of implementing AAI.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 12
- $a zooterapie $7 D056447
- 650 _2
- $a zvířata $7 D000818
- 650 _2
- $a psi $7 D004285
- 650 12
- $a rodina $7 D005190
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 12
- $a služby domácí péče $7 D006699
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a hygiena $7 D006920
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a pečovatelské domovy $7 D009735
- 650 _2
- $a pilotní projekty $7 D010865
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Procházková, Radka $u Department of Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Konigová, Petra $u Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Svobodová, Ivona $u Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Přibylová, Lucie $u Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 700 1_
- $a Vadroňová, Mariana $u Department of Ethology and Companion Animal Science, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00176090 $t International journal of environmental research and public health $x 1660-4601 $g Roč. 17, č. 16 (2020)
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32824637 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210105 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210114152630 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1608268 $s 1119113
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 17 $c 16 $e 20200818 $i 1660-4601 $m International journal of environmental research and public health $n Int. j. environ. res. public health $x MED00176090
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210105