Suppr超能文献

针对痴呆症的动物辅助疗法。

Animal-assisted therapy for dementia.

作者信息

Lai Nai Ming, Chang Sharon Mei Wern, Ng Siok Shen, Tan Shir Ley, Chaiyakunapruk Nathorn, Stanaway Fiona

机构信息

Taylor's University, School of Medicine, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.

Hospital Melaka, Pharmacy Resources and Information Centre (PRIC), Jalan Mufti Haji-Khalil, Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia, 75400.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 25;2019(11):CD013243. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013243.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a chronic condition which progressively affects memory and other cognitive functions, social behaviour, and ability to carry out daily activities. To date, no treatment is clearly effective in preventing progression of the disease, and most treatments are symptomatic, often aiming to improve people's psychological symptoms or behaviours which are challenging for carers. A range of new therapeutic strategies has been evaluated in research, and the use of trained animals in therapy sessions, termed animal-assisted therapy (AAT), is receiving increasing attention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.

摘要

背景

痴呆症是一种慢性疾病,会逐渐影响记忆及其他认知功能、社交行为和日常活动能力。迄今为止,尚无治疗方法能明显有效阻止该病进展,大多数治疗只是对症治疗,通常旨在改善患者的心理症状或让护理人员感到棘手的行为。一系列新的治疗策略已在研究中得到评估,在治疗过程中使用经过训练的动物,即动物辅助疗法(AAT),正受到越来越多的关注。

目的

评估动物辅助疗法对痴呆症患者的疗效和安全性。

检索方法

我们于2019年9月5日检索了ALOIS:Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组专业注册库。ALOIS包含从主要医疗保健数据库、试验注册库和灰色文献来源每月检索中识别出的临床试验记录。我们还检索了MEDLINE(OvidSP)、Embase(OvidSP)、PsycINFO(OvidSP)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、ISI科学网、ClinicalTrials.gov以及世界卫生组织的试验注册库门户。

选择标准

我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)、整群随机试验和随机交叉试验,这些试验比较了动物辅助疗法与无动物辅助疗法、使用活体动物的动物辅助疗法与机器人或玩具等替代品、动物辅助疗法与任何其他积极干预措施。

数据收集与分析

我们使用Cochrane痴呆症的标准方法提取数据。两位综述作者独立评估检索记录的合格性和偏倚风险。我们在适当情况下使用平均差(MD)、标准化平均差(SMD)和风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)来表达结果。

主要结果

我们纳入了10篇报告中的9项随机对照试验。所有9项研究均在欧洲和美国进行。6项研究为平行组、个体随机的随机对照试验;1项为随机交叉试验;2项为整群随机试验,可能在日托中心和养老院层面进行随机分组。我们从试验注册库中识别出2项正在进行的试验。有三项比较:动物辅助疗法与无动物辅助疗法(标准护理或各种与动物无关的活动)、使用活体动物与机器人动物的动物辅助疗法、使用活体动物与使用软质动物玩具的动物辅助疗法。这些研究评估了305名痴呆症患者。1项研究使用马,其余研究使用狗作为治疗动物。干预持续时间从6周到6个月不等,每次治疗持续10至90分钟,频率从每两周1次到每周2次不等。用于测量结果的工具多种多样。所有研究均存在较高的实施偏倚风险,选择偏倚风险不明确。我们对所有主要结果的证据确定性为非常低到中等。比较动物辅助疗法与无动物辅助疗法,接受动物辅助疗法的参与者在干预后可能抑郁程度略低(平均差 -2.87,95%置信区间 -5.24至 -0.50;2项研究,83名参与者;低确定性证据),但他们的生活质量似乎没有改善(平均差0.45,95%置信区间 -1.28至2.18;3项研究,164名参与者;中等确定性证据)。在所有其他主要结果方面没有明显差异,包括社交功能(平均差 -0.40,95%置信区间 -3.41至2.61;1项研究,58名参与者;低确定性证据)、问题行为(标准化平均差 -0.34,95%置信区间 -0.98至0.30;3项研究,142名参与者;非常低确定性证据)、激越(标准化平均差 -0.39,95%置信区间 -0.89至0.10;3项研究,143名参与者;非常低确定性证据)、日常生活活动(平均差4.65,95%置信区间 -16.05至25.35;1项研究,37名参与者;低确定性证据)和自我护理能力(平均差2.20,95%置信区间 -1.23至5.63;1项研究,58名参与者;低确定性证据)。没有关于不良事件的数据。比较使用活体动物与机器人动物的动物辅助疗法,1项研究(68名参与者)发现对社交功能有混合影响,与使用机器人动物的动物辅助疗法相比,接受使用活体动物的动物辅助疗法的参与者身体接触时间更长,但交谈时间更短(中位数:活体动物为93秒,机器人动物为28秒用于身体接触;活体动物为164秒,机器人动物为206秒用于与人交谈;活体动物为263秒,机器人动物为307秒用于总交谈时间)。另一项研究表明,在使用神经精神科问卷测量行为(平均差 -6.96,95%置信区间 -14.58至0.66;78名参与者;低确定性证据)或生活质量(平均差 -2.42,95%置信区间 -5.71至0.87;78名参与者;低确定性证据)方面,两组之间没有明显差异。没有关于其他结果的数据。比较使用活体动物与软质玩具猫的动物辅助疗法,1项研究(64名参与者)仅以接触和交谈时间的形式评估了社交功能。数据以中位数和四分位间距表示。动物辅助疗法组参与者的接触时间略长,接触玩具猫的参与者交谈时间略长。这是低确定性证据。

作者结论

我们发现低确定性证据表明动物辅助疗法可能会略微减轻痴呆症患者的抑郁症状。我们没有发现明确证据表明动物辅助疗法会影响该人群的其他结果,根据结果不同,我们对证据的确定性从非常低到中等不等。我们没有发现关于安全性或对动物影响的证据。因此,关于动物辅助疗法对痴呆症患者的总体益处和风险,目前尚无法得出明确结论。需要进一步开展设计良好的随机对照试验,以提高证据的确定性。鉴于在此类试验中使参与者和工作人员实现盲法存在困难,未来的随机对照试验应致力于使结果评估者盲法化,清晰记录分配方法,并纳入主要的对患者重要的结果,如情感、情绪和社交功能、生活质量、不良事件以及对动物的结果。

相似文献

1
Animal-assisted therapy for dementia.针对痴呆症的动物辅助疗法。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 25;2019(11):CD013243. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013243.pub2.
4
Cognitive training for people with mild to moderate dementia.针对轻度至中度痴呆症患者的认知训练。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 25;3(3):CD013069. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013069.pub2.
7
Multi-domain interventions for the prevention of dementia and cognitive decline.多领域干预措施预防痴呆和认知能力下降。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 8;11(11):CD013572. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013572.pub2.
8
Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.晚期痴呆症的姑息治疗干预。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 28;9(9):CD011513. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011513.pub3.
10
Exergaming for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.锻炼游戏治疗痴呆和轻度认知障碍。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Sep 25;9(9):CD013853. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013853.pub2.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

8
[Evaluation of the animal-assisted therapy in Alzheimer's disease].[阿尔茨海默病动物辅助治疗的评估]
Soins Gerontol. 2017 May-Jun;22(125):35-38. doi: 10.1016/j.sger.2017.03.008.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验