Table 4.

Characteristics of the retrieved studies regarding animal interventions for adult inpatients with various illness (including orthopedic patients, and high-risk pregnancy). The table reported information about the study design, the participant characteristics (sample size, disease, and setting), the intervention type (including length and animal used), the considered outcomes and the main results.

Authors and Year	Study Design	Sample	Disease/setting	Intervention Type	Length	Animals	Outcome	Findings
Harper, 2014	RCT	72 patients	Orthopedic patients after Total Joint Arthroplasty intervention	Intervention Group: therapy dog and handler visitation Control group: standard physical therapy	30 min before each physical therapy session	Dogs	Pain (VAS scale) Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (HCAHPS)	Patients in the intervention group had lower VAS scores after each session compared to standard care (p < 0.001). The intervention group presented higher scores regarding nursing communication (p = 0.035), pain management (p = 0.024) and overall hospital rating (p < 0.001) compared to control group.
Havey et al. 2014	Retrospective study	297 hospitalized patients	Joint replacement intervention	Hospital A: no AAT program Hospital B: AAT program (dog + handler visits)	Visits of 5–15 minutes	Dogs	Analysis of oral pain medications usage	The cohort receiving at least one session of animal assisted therapy presented lower rate of oral pain medication use (p = 0.007)
Lynch et al. 2014	Pilot study	82 Hospitalized women	High-risk pregnancies	Non-structured session of dog in-room contact	Sessions of 15–20 min	Dogs	State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Beck Depression Inventory	Both depression (p < 0.0001) and anxiety (p < 0.0001) significantly improved following dog contact
Nahm, 2012	Survey	125 patients, 105 staff members	Emergency Department (ED)	Therapy dogs visited the ED	6 visits during the observation period	Dogs	Acceptance of a therapy dog among staff and patients	Most patients (93%) and staff (95%) thought that therapeutic dogs should visit the ED. Only 3.3% of patients and 1% of staff considered dog presence as a danger, while 8.6% of the staff and 4.2% of patients thought that dogs could interfered with ED work.
Coakley 2009	Pre-/post quasi-experimental design	61 inpatients	Medical 52.6% or surgical 47.4% diagnosis	Individualized pet therapy intervention based on patient preference	Session of on average 10 min	Dogs	Vital signs (blood pressure, pulse and respiratory rate) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain Profile of Mood States survey (POMS)	After pet therapy sessions, patients experienced a significant decrease in respiratory rate (p < 0.001) and pain score (p = 0.001), associated with increased energy levels (p = 0.001). Total mood disturbance scores improved significantly (p < 0.001), in particular, in anxiety (p < 0.001), anger (p = 0.001) and fatigue (p < 0.001) items.
Hastings et al. 2008	Survey	614 patients or visitors	Burn Intensive Care Unit and Burn Acute Care Unit	Dog-AAT	Bi-weekly visitation	Dogs	Total number of AAT visits Questionnaire with visitation assessments Observational summaries from patients, their families, and staff.	Number of dog-visits increased from 2002 to 2005 (respectively 39 vs. >300). Only 3 patients (0.5%) refused dog visitation, reporting fear. Observations of patients, families, and staff were nearly all positive