• Animal-Assisted Therapies

last modified November 29, 2018 by strypey

Claims and Counterclaims about AAT

 Effectiveness Table Title [separate claims and counterclaims into categories in separate tables where this clarifies matters]

 1. Therapy animals are effective at reducing distress among patients.

 1. The evidence for therapy animals reducing patient distress is weak.

 2. Psychologists have found that therapy animals improve outcomes for their patients.  2. The efficacy of therapy animals in psychological treatment is anecdotal and inconclusive.

 Safety Concerns

 1. The evidence cited for superbug infection is actually ordinary skin bacteria being transferred from human to human inside the hospital, due to inadequate use of hand sanitizer.
 1. Therapy animals have been shown to bring superbugs into hospitals.
 2. Any animals, human visitors included, carries a whole microbiome of bacteria with us all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a threat to anyone else.
 2. Therapy animals carry a number of dangerous bacteria.


 Points of Interest

  • Organizations strongly in favour of AAT include; Human-Animal Bond Research Initiative (HABRI), UCLAHealth,

 Primary Sources

 News Coverage

Improvement Notes

2018-11-29: Some of the sources I've found sit somewhere between 'Primary Sources' and 'News Coverage'. In a couple of cases, the articles are outside the peer-reviewed literature, but written by people with relevant expertise. In another case, there is a brief editorial piece in a (potentially low quality) journal that doesn't qualify as a primary source. Do I need another category?

2018-11-27: Started new page, to collect the windfalls from the quick web search I did. Need to finishing fleshing it out into a basic Counterclaim page by skimming the stuff I found, teasing out some claims and counterclaims, and placing the primary sources with them as appropriate.