Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025
Responsive community-based dog-assisted services: an evaluation of the Bracknell community dog hub model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shoesmith Emily, Gibsone Selina, Ring Hayley, Purchese Lucy, Ratschen Elena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Animal-assisted services are increasingly common in the United Kingdom (UK) but scarcely evaluated. Dogs for Good, a UK-based charity, launched a community dog service to promote physical and mental health in underserved groups. This service evaluation explored participant experiences of this service, and how the service may 'work'.
METHODS: The evaluation involved reviewing feedback forms and conducting semi-structured interviews with six participants who delivered or engaged with the service. A preliminary exploration of data using thematic analysis are presented.
RESULTS: The service has reached 267 participants (aged 5-75+), including people with dementia (n = 173), mental health conditions (n = 40), autism spectrum condition and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (n = 31), and learning disabilities (n = 11). Feedback and interviews indicated the service positively impacted mental health and wellbeing, which may be underpinned by various mechanisms (e.g. promotion of health through companionship, enhanced motivation to engage in activities).
CONCLUSION: This evaluation highlighted the service's successful implementation and positive impact, alongside delivery barriers. Given the service's complexity, involving various content and interactions with diverse populations, it is likely multiple mechanisms work to underpin positive outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate this service at scale and explore how mechanisms may differ across diverse groups.
METHODS: The evaluation involved reviewing feedback forms and conducting semi-structured interviews with six participants who delivered or engaged with the service. A preliminary exploration of data using thematic analysis are presented.
RESULTS: The service has reached 267 participants (aged 5-75+), including people with dementia (n = 173), mental health conditions (n = 40), autism spectrum condition and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (n = 31), and learning disabilities (n = 11). Feedback and interviews indicated the service positively impacted mental health and wellbeing, which may be underpinned by various mechanisms (e.g. promotion of health through companionship, enhanced motivation to engage in activities).
CONCLUSION: This evaluation highlighted the service's successful implementation and positive impact, alongside delivery barriers. Given the service's complexity, involving various content and interactions with diverse populations, it is likely multiple mechanisms work to underpin positive outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate this service at scale and explore how mechanisms may differ across diverse groups.