HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018 April 01; 22(2): 193–198. doi:10.1188/18.CJON.193-198.

Animal-Facilitated Therapy Program:

Outcomes from Caring Canines, a program for patients and staff on an inpatient surgical
oncology unit

Pamela Ginex, EdD, RN, OCN®, Mary Montefusco, MSN, ACNP-BC, OCN®, BMTCN®, Glenn
Zecco, RN, BSN, Nicole Trocchia Mattessich, MSN, FNP-BC, OCN®, Jacquelyn Burns, RN,
MSN, NE-BC, Jane Hedal-Siegel, BFA, Jane Kopelman, CPDT-KA, Kay See Tan, PhD
Pamela Ginex, EdD, RN, OCN®, is a senior manager of evidence-based practice at the Oncology
Author Manuscript

Nursing Society in Pittsburgh, PA; Mary Montefusco, MSN, ACNP-BC, OCN®, BMTCN®, is an
adult bone marrow transplant nurse practitioner, Glenn Zecco, RN, BSN, is a clinical nurse II,
Nicole Trocchia Mattessich, MSN, FNP-BC, OCN®, is an adult colorectal/gastric mixed tumor
nurse practitioner, Jacquelyn Burns, RN, MSN, NE-BC, is a nurse leader, and Jane Hedal-Siegel,
BFA, is the director of the Department of Volunteer Resources, all at Memorial Sloan Kettering
Cancer Center in New York, NY; Jane Kopelman, CPDT-KA, is a self-employed dog trainer in New
York, NY; and Kay See Tan, PhD, is an assistant attending biostatistician at Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal-facilitated therapy (AFT) is a complementary medicine intervention.
Author Manuscript

To the authors’ knowledge, no study has investigated the benefits of an AFT program in an adult
surgical oncology setting.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of an AFT program on patients
and staff on a surgical oncology unit.

METHODS: A quasiexperimental design was used for the patient group, and a pre-/post-test
design was used for the staff group. The intervention involved the AFT program being fully
integrated on a surgical inpatient unit. Outcomes included patient-reported symptoms and quality-
of-life (QOL) outcomes for patients, as well as professional QOL for staff.

FINDINGS: QOL indicators improved for all patients, and the level of energy at follow-up was
significantly higher in the AFT group after adjusting for baseline. For staff, compassion
satisfaction was high and burnout was low.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
animal-facilitated therapy; professional quality of life; patient outcomes

ANIMAL-FACILITATED THERAPY (AFT) IS THE USE OF TRAINED ANIMALS for

the therapeutic, motivational, or educational benefit of patients. AFT with dogs involves a

For permission to post online, reprint, adapt, or reuse, please pubpermissions@ons.org. ONS reserves all rights.
Ginex can be reached at pamginex@gmail.com.
 Ginex et al. Page 2

visit by a volunteer (called the dog’s handler) and the volunteer’s dog that has been trained
Author Manuscript

and tested for temperament and obedience. A visit by a therapy dog typically lasts about 10–
15 minutes, with the patient interacting with the therapy dog while the dog is supervised by
the handler.

AFT has been associated with positive effects in many studies (Palley, O’Rourke, & Niemi,
2010; Phung et al., 2017). Comprehensive literature reviews and a meta-analysis found
treatment effects in symptoms for patients with autism and medical and behavioral disorders
and patients with depression (Matuszek, 2010; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007; Souter & Miller,
2007). AFT has been documented to produce objective and subjective health changes in
patients (Barker, Knisely, McCain, & Best, 2005; Charnetski, Riggers, & Brennan, 2004;
Marcus et al., 2013).

Psychological variables are often the primary outcome of AFT studies. Pain, fatigue, stress,
Author Manuscript

and mood were studied in patients with chronic pain who received AFT compared with a
control group of similar patients who did not receive a visit. Each symptom significantly
improved in the AFT group but not in the control group (Marcus et al., 2012). A study of
patients hospitalized on an inpatient mental health unit by Nepps, Stewart, and Bruckno
(2014) identified significant decreases in depression, anxiety, pain, and pulse after an AFT
program, compared to patients in a more traditional stress management group. A study at a
large Midwestern hospital identified that patients reported decreased pain, anxiety, and
fatigue scores across nine adult inpatient departments following AFT (Phung et al., 2017).

A study of infection rates before and after an AFT program on an inpatient unit found no
change in infections, microorganisms, or contagious diseases with the introduction of dogs
to a hospital setting (Caprilli & Messeri, 2006). Hospital policies regarding screening and
Author Manuscript

medical clearance for volunteer dogs minimize risks. Although the risks of AFT are
minimal, it is important to recognize that not all patients are suitable for this therapy.

A growing body of evidence supports the use of AFT as a complement to cancer treatment.
AFT has been beneficial in reducing anxiety and improving a patient’s perceived view of his
or her overall health (Johnson, Meadows, Haubner, & Sevedge, 2008; Muschel, 1984).
Patients in a hospice center with an AFT program reported decreased fear, anxiety, isolation,
and loneliness (Muschel, 1984); they also reported that interacting with a pet filled needs
that were not being met by the human staff. AFT has been shown to be beneficial for
patients undergoing chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. Orlandi et al. (2007) compared a
group of patients who received AFT with a group who did not receive AFT. In the AFT
group, depression improved compared to the control group. Other symptoms (pain, dyspnea,
asthenia, and nausea/vomiting) did not change in the AFT group but worsened in the control
Author Manuscript

group (Orlandi et al., 2007). In most studies to date, benefits were assessed immediately
before and after a pet therapy visit.

AFT is geared toward patients, but this program showed that staff also may benefit.
Research has focused on perceptions of staff toward AFT and found them to be generally
positive (Crowley-Robinson & Blackshaw, 1998; Moody, King, & O’Rourke, 2002;
Winkler, Fairnie, Gericevich, & Long, 1989). Bibbo (2013) examined the perceptions of

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 3

staff members toward an AFT program in an outpatient regional cancer center and found that
Author Manuscript

the staff members were generally accepting of the AFT program. To date, no study has
assessed the outcomes of an AFT program on staff members in an oncology inpatient
setting.

Objectives
The specific aim for the patient group was to assess the effects of an AFT program on
psychological (anxiety and depression) variables. The specific aim for the staff group was to
assess the effects of an AFT program on work satisfaction in nursing and ancillary staff. A
secondary aim for both groups was to gather descriptive responses to assist in understanding
the perceived benefits of an AFT program.
“Animal-facilitated therapy is geared toward patients, but this program showed that
Author Manuscript

staff also may benefit.”

Methods
This was a prospective pre-/post-test study with two groups of participants: patients
following surgery and staff working on an inpatient surgical oncology unit (see Figure 1).
Institutional review board approval was obtained, and all patients and staff provided written
informed consent.

Patients were eligible for the current study if they were aged older than 21 years, admitted to
the surgical inpatient oncology unit, and able to speak and read English. Patients were
excluded if they reported an allergy to dogs, required an isolation room, or had a medical
need to be in a protective environment room.
Author Manuscript

Although active within the hospital, the AFT program (hereafter referred to as the Caring
Canines program) was not yet implemented on the surgical unit where the study was
conducted. The unit is a surgical inpatient unit with patients recovering from abdominal or
limb surgery. An initial cohort of consecutive patients admitted to the unit formed the usual
care control group of the study. Once the usual care group was completed, the Caring
Canines program participants started on the unit and the AFT group began accrual. This
sequential group design was deemed the most appropriate means of testing the effects of the
intervention, given the practical and ethical constraints involved. A randomized control
group design was considered infeasible and inappropriate in that patients are treated in
multiple-bed rooms.

For the staff portion, a pre-/post-test design was used. Staff were eligible if they were aged
Author Manuscript

older than age 21 years, worked at least one day shift per week, and were able to speak and
read English. Staff were excluded from the study if they reported an allergy to dogs.

Intervention
The therapy dogs that are part of the Caring Canines program are all highly trained and
carefully selected. Although a dog must be well-trained, temperament is also important. A
therapy dog must be outgoing and friendly, actively wanting to interact with all kinds of

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 4

people. The dog must be confident and able to handle crowds, noises, and hospital-related
Author Manuscript

equipment. The handler works with the patient to assess the level of involvement he or she
would like with the dog.

Volunteers and dogs from the Caring Canines program visited the surgical unit four days a
week during the study period. Patients in the AFT group received one Caring Canine visit
daily. If patients were off the floor for a test, an effort was made to visit the patient later.
Regardless of the study arm, patients completed paper-and-pencil measures at the time of
consent (one day post-surgery) and at or near the time of discharge.

The intervention for staff was the Caring Canines program being fully integrated on the unit
and having repeated exposure to the dogs during a routine workday. Caring Canine visits
were planned for Tuesday to Friday weekly, and staff had the opportunity to interact with the
dogs either directly (spending some time with them when they were on the unit) or indirectly
Author Manuscript

(seeing them visit with patients even if they did not have direct contact with them). Staff
members were assessed at baseline prior to the Caring Canine program being implemented
and after the program had been fully functional on the unit for at least six weeks.

Instruments
All patients (AFT and control group) completed an identical baseline questionnaire that
included self-report of symptoms, motivation to walk, sense of well-being, and the Patient
Health Questionnaire–4 (PHQ-4). The PHQ-4 is a widely used measure of depression and
anxiety first developed by Spitzer in 1999 (Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams, & Löwe, 2009). The
PHQ-4 is an ultra-brief self-report questionnaire that consists of a two-item depression scale
and a two-item anxiety scale. The PHQ-4 has been validated as a brief measure of
depression and anxiety in a general population (Löwe et al., 2010). Several descriptive open-
Author Manuscript

ended questions were included on the discharge questionnaire for the AFT group related to
perceptions and benefits of the program.

Staff members were assessed prior to the initiation of the Caring Canines program and after
the program had been active on the unit for six weeks. Staff completed the Professional
Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL-5) (Stamm, 2005), which includes three subscales measuring
compassion fatigue and secondary trauma, burnout, and compassion satisfaction. The
burnout and compassion satisfaction subscales were most relevant to the current study. Each
subscale is unique, and the results of the scales cannot be combined, so excluding one does
not alter the validity of the subscales. The instrument includes 10 items in each scale, which
are rated numerically on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often). Construct validity has been well established by Stamm (2005). Stamm (2005)
Author Manuscript

described burnout as “associated with feelings of hopelessness and difficulties in dealing

with work or in doing your job effectively” and defined compassion satisfaction as “the
pleasure you derive from being able to do your work well” (p. 12). The scores that may
indicate concern are burnout greater than 27 or compassion satisfaction less than 33 (Yoder,
2010). The postintervention assessment also included descriptive open-ended questions for
staff that asked about the positives or negatives of the program.

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 5

Data Analysis
Author Manuscript

For patients, differences between baseline and follow-up PHQ-4 scores were evaluated with
the paired t tests within each arm. To quantify the effect of the intervention, the differences
between the change in PHQ-4 scores (from baseline to follow-up) in the control arm and the
change in PHQ-4 scores (from baseline to follow-up) in the AFT arm were evaluated with
the two-sample t test. As a supplement to the two-sample t tests, analysis of covariance tests
investigated whether the follow-up measures were significantly different between the two
groups after adjusting for the baseline score. For staff, differences between the baseline and
six-week follow-up ProQOL-5 subscales were evaluated with the paired t test to quantify the
potential effect of the Caring Canine program.

A descriptive analysis was used for the open-ended questions for patients and staff.
Responses were reviewed by the research team, and descriptive themes that represent salient
Author Manuscript

findings from the data were generated.

Results
Patients
One hundred patients enrolled in the study, 50 in the control group and 50 in the AFT group.
The control group included 25 women and 25 men with an average age of 58 years. The
AFT group included 27 women and 23 men with an average age of 55 years. Of all patients
approached about the study, only 19 declined to participate. Reasons for not participating
included allergy to dogs (n = 3), too tired or in pain (n = 9), “just not a dog person” (n = 4),
or non-English speaking (n = 2); one patient’s roommate did not want a dog to visit in the
room. Among those in the AFT group, the majority of patients (n = 26) received three or
four visits with a Caring Canine; 20 received two visits.
Author Manuscript

The primary endpoint for the patient group was the change from baseline in the follow-up
PHQ-4 (depression and anxiety subscores) among the control and AFT groups. Significant
changes were identified from baseline to follow-up PHQ-4 scores within each group
(control, p < 0.001; AFT, p = 0.0003), but the decreases from baseline to follow-up were not
significantly different between groups (p = 0.3) (see Table 1). Depression scores were not
significant from baseline to follow-up. Anxiety scores changed significantly from baseline to
follow-up (control, p < 0.001; AFT, p < 0.001) but were not significantly different between
groups (p = 0.9).

The paired t test (pre-/post-test) identified significant changes from baseline to follow-up in
level of energy within each group (control, p = 0.003; AFT, p = 0.004), but the decreases
Author Manuscript

were not significantly different between groups. Paired t tests for level of anxiety identified
significant changes from baseline to follow-up only in the control group (X difference =
−0.6, p = 0.003) with the AFT group changes not being significant (X difference = −0.1, p =
0.459). Change from baseline to follow-up in motivation to walk, happiness, hopefulness,
level of stress, fatigue, pain, and overall sense of well-being were not significantly different
between the AFT and control groups (see Table 2).

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 6

Staff
Author Manuscript

Forty-one staff members enrolled in the intervention. Staff included clinical and nonclinical
personnel. Twenty-six staff members were nurses, with the remainder being ancillary staff (n
= 9) and patient care technicians and unit assistants (n = 6). Staff scores on the ProQOL-5
compassion satisfaction and burnout scales were similar and were not significantly different
from pre- to postintervention. Compassion satisfaction at baseline was 43 and at follow-up
was 43.5 (p = 0.265). Burnout at baseline was 19.8 and at follow-up was 18.6 (p = 0.063).

Descriptive Analysis of Open-Ended Questions

Patient responses to open-ended questions were grouped into three primary themes: a sense
of happiness or hopefulness, that the Caring Canines provided a welcome distraction, and
that a visit with a Caring Canine gave them motivation and energy they needed during
recovery. Patients wrote that a visit with a Caring Canine was “uplifting,” “brought joy,” and
Author Manuscript

“makes [me] full of hope.” They also spoke of how the “dogs are positive, and they helped
me to be positive.” The Caring Canines also provided a welcome distraction (“nice break in
my day,” “made me feel happy [and] broke up my day”). Patients also spoke of the
motivating effect of the Caring Canines program, saying the following:

• “As soon as I heard about the program, I felt better. I wanted to be up in

a chair to meet them.”

• “It was so uplifting. It really helped me get up and walking.”

When asked what the benefits of the program were, patients spoke of how much they
enjoyed speaking with the volunteer handlers, how the Caring Canines gave them a
“connection to home,” and how their family and visitors had benefited from the program.
Author Manuscript

Staff responses were grouped into three themes: a sense of calming and comfort that lowered
stress, a sense of happiness and hopefulness, and that having the program on the unit was a
good distraction. Staff mentioned the following:

• “[Caring Canines] was a very positive program for the patients and
staff. Seeing the dogs on the unit has put a smile on everyone’s face, no
matter the day [he or she is] having.”

• “They make a stressful day better.”

They mentioned that the program “makes me happy to look forward to seeing the dogs come
up to our floor. … The dogs also give us happy feelings.” Staff also said the following about
the program being a good distraction:
Author Manuscript

• “The [Caring Canines] program gives me something to look forward

to.”

• “They bring a calm atmosphere to the nurses’ station.”

Discussion
The current study was the first, to the authors’ knowledge, that assessed the impact of AFT
on patients following cancer surgery and on clinical and nonclinical staff who work on a

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 7

surgical oncology unit. The patient-reported level of energy significantly improved in both
Author Manuscript

groups from baseline to follow-up, and the level of anxiety significantly improved in the
control group. Other quantitative findings were not significant for patients or staff. However,
qualitative findings revealed that patients and staff viewed the AFT intervention positively.
This contradiction between the quantitative and qualitative findings highlights a significant
challenge in conducting research on AFT interventions. Although participants reported
many positive benefits of the program, measuring those benefits proved difficult, which is
consistent with past research on this type of intervention (Johnson et al., 2008).

Several factors may have led to the difficulty in measuring quantitative outcomes from AFT.
Patients in the intervention and control groups were recovering from surgery and were
getting better each day, making the chance of seeing a statistically significant difference
between groups difficult. These challenges highlight the importance of including open-ended
questions to measure outcomes. These open-ended questions may provide a more holistic
Author Manuscript

description of the patient and staff experience with this type of intervention.

Two anecdotal findings arose during the study. One was that the authors had not anticipated
the importance of the volunteer (the dog’s handler) during the visit. The volunteers were
dedicated and experienced and had been involved in the Caring Canines program for several
years or more. During the study visits with patients, the volunteers engaged the patients and
families in discussion and were a positive presence that cannot be separated from the Caring
Canines program. Previous AFT research identified that a dog visit was viewed as equally
favorable as a visit with a human among patients with cancer (Johnson, Meadows, Haubner,
& Sevedge, 2003).

The second anecdotal finding was the benefit of the Caring Canines program on family and
Author Manuscript

visitors. Family members told the research staff how much they looked forward to the visits
and how beneficial the visits were to them because they also were experiencing a stressful
time. Several patients even took pictures of themselves with their Caring Canine to send to
family and friends who were unable to visit (particularly minor children). This was
mentioned by participants as an opportunity to alleviate stress their family was experiencing
because they were unable to visit in person. Although these are anecdotal findings, the
impact of the volunteer on patient outcomes and the benefits of AFT programs on caregivers
warrant further attention.

No patients or staff reported negative feedback from the study; however, several patients
declined to participate. It is important to keep in mind that this type of intervention may not
appeal to all patients. At the current facility, patients are approached by a member of the
volunteer services department and provide written consent to receive a visit from one of the
Author Manuscript

Caring Canines.

The current study was also the first study to assess the benefits of AFT during a period of
consecutive days. Past research has shown that patients benefit immediately after a session
with a therapy dog (Nepps et al., 2014). Although the quantitative results did not identify
improvement, patient and staff open-ended responses were overwhelmingly positive. As
such, additional research in this area of support for patients and staff is important.

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 8

Implications for Nursing

Author Manuscript

AFT promotes a healing environment for patients that involves a holistic and humanistic
perspective. Nursing’s first use of AFT can be dated back to Florence Nightingale. In her
writings, she commented on the benefits of animals on patient care and recovery by stating
that a pet “is often an excellent companion for the sick, for long chronic cases especially”
(Nightingale & Salotti, 2004, p. 86). A healing environment has the potential to improve the
patient experience during oncology treatment.

Conclusion
Staff and patient participants in the current study were overwhelmingly positive about their
experience with AFT in an acute care setting. This type of program is most often
coordinated by the volunteer services department in the hospital setting. Collaboration
Author Manuscript

between volunteer services and nursing can enhance a healing environment that leads to
improved patient outcomes. Future research should explore benefits of AFT with patients
and staff in other oncology settings.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the patients and staff who participated in this study and the dedicated Caring
Canine volunteers, without whom the study could not have happened and who bring smiles to patients every day.
The authors particularly acknowledge the dedicated volunteers who participated in the study with their Caring
Canine: Mary Jane Koren and Topsy; Nancy Meyrich and GG; Carole Hughes and Satchmo; and Bonnie Howard
and Lexi.

The authors take full responsibility for this content. This research was funded in part by a National Institutes of
Health support grant (P30 CA08748-49) from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The article has been
reviewed by independent peer reviewers to ensure that it is objective and free from bias.
Author Manuscript

REFERENCES
Barker SB, Knisely JS, McCain NL, & Best AM (2005). Measuring stress and immune response in
healthcare professionals following interaction with a therapy dog: A pilot study. Psychology
Reports, 96, 713–729. 10.2466/pr0.96.3.713-729
Bibbo J (2013). Staff members’ perceptions of an animal-assisted activity [Online exclusive].
Oncology Nursing Forum, 40, E320–E326. 10.1188/13.ONF.E320-E326 [PubMed: 23803276]
Caprilli S, & Messeri A (2006). Animal-assisted activity at A. Meyer Children’s Hospital: A pilot
study. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 3, 379–383. 10.1093/ecam/
nel029 [PubMed: 16951723]
Charnetski CJ, Riggers S, & Brennan FX (2004). Effect of petting a dog on immune system function.
Psychological Reports, 95, 1087–1091. 10.2466/pr0.95.3f.1087-1091 [PubMed: 15762389]
Crowley-Robinson P, & Blackshaw JK (1998). Nursing home staffs’ empathy for a missing therapy
dog, their attitudes to animal-assisted therapy programs and suitable dog breeds. Anthrozoös, 11,
Author Manuscript

101–104. 10.2752/089279398787000779
Johnson RA, Meadows RL, Haubner JS, & Sevedge K (2003). Human-animal interaction: A
complementary/alternative medical (CAM) intervention for cancer patients. American Behavioral
Scientist, 47, 55–69. 10.1177/0002764203255213
Johnson RA, Meadows RL, Haubner JS, & Sevedge K (2008). Animal-assisted activity among patients
with cancer: Effects on mood, fatigue, self-perceived health, and sense of coherence. Oncology
Nursing Forum, 35, 225–232. 10.1188/08.ONF.225-232 [PubMed: 18321834]
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, & Löwe B (2009). An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and
depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50, 613–621. [PubMed: 19996233]

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 9

Löwe B, Wahl I, Rose M, Spitzer C, Glaesmer H, Wingenfeld K, … Brähler E (2010). A 4-item

measure of depression and anxiety: Validation and standardization of the Patient Health
Author Manuscript

Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122, 86–95.
[PubMed: 19616305]
Marcus DA, Bernstein CD, Constantin JM, Kunkel FA, Breuer P, & Hanlon RB (2012). Animal-
assisted therapy at an outpatient pain management clinic. Pain Medicine, 13, 45–57. [PubMed:
22233395]
Marcus DA, Bernstein CD, Constantin JM, Kunkel FA, Breuer P, & Hanlon RB (2013). Impact of
animal-assisted therapy for outpatients with fibromyalgia. Pain Medicine, 14, 43–51. [PubMed:
23170993]
Matuszek S (2010). Animal-facilitated therapy in various patient populations: Systematic literature
review. Holistic Nursing Practice, 24(4), 187–203. [PubMed: 20588128]
Moody WJ, King R, & O’Rourke S (2002). Attitudes of pediatric medical ward staff to a dog visitation
programme. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11, 537–544. [PubMed: 12100650]
Muschel IJ (1984). Pet therapy with terminal cancer patients. Social Casework, 65, 451–458.
[PubMed: 10268446]
Author Manuscript

Nepps P, Stewart CN, & Bruckno SR (2014). Animal-assisted activity: Effects of a complementary
intervention program on psychological and physiological variables. Journal of Evidence-Based
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 19, 211–215. [PubMed: 24789913]
Nightingale F, & Salotti R (2004). Notes on nursing: What it is and what it is not. New York, NY:
Barnes and Noble.
Nimer J, & Lundahl B (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20, 225–238.
10.2752/089279307X224773
Orlandi M, Trangeled K, Mambrini A, Tagliani M, Ferrarini A, Zanetti L, … Cantore M (2007). Pet
therapy effects on oncological day hospital patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment.
Anticancer Research, 27, 4301–4303. [PubMed: 18214035]
Palley LS, O’Rourke PP, & Niemi SM (2010). Mainstreaming animal-assisted therapy. ILAR Journal,
51, 199–207. [PubMed: 21131720]
Phung A, Joyce C, Ambutas S, Browning M, Fogg L, Christopher BA, & Flood S (2017). Animal-
assisted therapy for inpatient adults. Nursing, 47, 63–66.
Author Manuscript

Souter MA, & Miller MD (2007). Do animal-assisted activities effectively treat depression? A meta-
analysis. Anthrozoös, 20, 167–180. 10.2752/175303707X207954
Stamm BH (2005). Professional quality of life: Compassion satisfaction and fatigue sub-scales, R-IV
(ProQOL). Retrieved from http://www.proqol.org/proqol_test.html
Winkler A, Fairnie H, Gericevich F, & Long M (1989). The impact of a resident dog on an institution
for the elderly: Effects on perceptions and social interactions. Gerontologist, 29, 216–223.
[PubMed: 2753381]
Yoder EA (2010). Compassion fatigue in nurses. Applied Nursing Research, 23, 191–197. 10.1016/
j.apnr.2008.09.003 [PubMed: 21035028]
Author Manuscript

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 10

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Author Manuscript

• Work together with volunteer services to bring programs, such as Caring

Canines, to nursing units.

• Promote a healing environment that leads to improved patient outcomes.

• Recognize that not all patients are suited for animal-facilitated therapy.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Ginex et al. Page 11
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIGURE 1.
PROTOCOL FLOW
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 1.

PHQ-4 SCORES FOR THE PATIENT GROUP (N = 100)

BASELINE FOLLOW-UP CHANGE

Ginex et al.

a a
CONTROL AFT CONTROL AFT CONTROL AFT

MEASURE X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD P1 X SD P1 P2
PHQ-4 4 3 3.6 3.2 2 1.8 1.5 2 −2 2.6 < 0.001 −2 3.5 0.0003 0.3

Anxiety 2.7 2 2.5 2.1 1 1.1 1 1.3 −1.7 1.8 < 0.001 −1.6 2.1 < 0.001 0.9

Depression 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.6 1 1.2 0.6 1 −0.3 1.3 0.074 −0.5 2 0.104 0.076

a
Change from baseline to follow-up scores across all individuals in the group

AFT—animal-facilitated therapy; PHQ-4—Patient Health Questionnaire–4

Note. P1 is a paired t test of baseline and follow-up scores within each group. P2 is an analysis of covariance test comparing both arms after adjusting for baseline scores.

Note. Possible total scores on the PHQ-4 range from 0–12 (0–2 is normal; 3–5 is mild, 6–8 is moderate, and 9–12 is severe anxiety or depression).

Note. On the anxiety and depression scales, a score of 3 or greater suggests anxiety or depression.

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
Page 12
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 2.

PATIENT-REPORTED SYMPTOMS AND QUALITY OF LIFE FROM BASELINE TO FOLLOW-UP (N = 94)

CHANGE FROM BASELINE TO FOLLOW-UP

Ginex et al.

a
CONTROL AFT CONTROL VERSUS AFT

CHARACTERISTIC X SD P1 X SD P1 P2
Fatigue −0.5 1.1 0.003 −0.6 1.3 0.011 0.4

Happiness 0.4 0.8 0.003 0.3 0.8 0.043 0.8

Hopefulness 0.0 0.7 0.66 −0.0 0.7 0.675 0.9

Level of anxiety −0.6 1.1 0.003 −0.1 1 0.459 0.5

Level of energy 0.4 0.9 0.003 0.7 0.8 0.004 0.064

Level of stress −0.6 1.1 0.003 −0.2 1.2 0.459 0.8

Motivation to walk 0.4 1 0.019 0.4 1.1 0.34 0.373

Sense of well-being 0.3 0.7 0.019 0.5 1 0.008 0.4

a
Change from baseline to follow-up score across all individuals in the group

AFT—animal-facilitated therapy

Note. P1 is a paired t test of baseline and follow-up scores within each group. P2 is an analysis of covariance test comparing both arms after adjusting for baseline scores.

Note. All characteristics are scored on a scale ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (high).

Clin J Oncol Nurs. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 August 24.
Page 13