Table 1.

Summary of inclusion & exclusion criteria with rationale [7,8,40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

Inclusion	Exclusion
Population: Students in higher education (defined as post-secondary education leading to a degree). OR A description of an equivalent/use of terms known to be associated with higher education. Rationale: Definition of higher education and represents a population exposed to significant stress. If stressor present, had to be an aspect of study, training, education or be student-specific. Rationale: student-specific stressor.	Population: Students who all have an established diagnosed condition/disorder (such as autism or ADHD). Rationale: could substantially affect the clinical heterogeneity of the populations being compared.
Intervention: AAI—particularly AAT and AAA. OR Live animal considered/called a therapy animal (OR animal had training AND assessment or evaluation/certification), a therapeutic goal/aim was identified, and the outcomes of interest were evaluated. Rationale: Key elements of AAI (including AAT and AAA); evaluation of relevant outcomes was required to assess results.	Intervention: Not involving a live animal. Rationale: AAIs involve live animals. Participants’ own pets/companion/support/assistance/service animals. Rationale: Likely to represent potential confounders/effect modifiers and not consistent with definitions of AAI, AAT or AAA.
Comparator: A comparison group required. Rationale: comparators are required to evaluate intervention’s effectiveness.	Comparator: No comparator.
Outcome: Psychological using published or established standardised measures: Primary outcomes: effect on anxiety and/or stress. Secondary outcomes: effect on depression, mood/affect and well-being. Rationale: Represent important measures of mental health and well-being.	Outcome: Physiological. Rationale: Often used as proxy measures for psychological states but not directly related to psychological outcomes. Educational/or academic. Rationale: Focus is on mental health and well-being, not performance.
Study: RCT and other types of randomisation. Rationale: RCT represents gold standard for measuring effectiveness.	Study: all non-randomised. Rationale: prone to effects of confounding & to ensure feasibility of review due to time/resources constraints.