Risks Associated with Animal-Assisted Intervention Programs: A Literature Review

1. Introduction

The emotional benefits of human-companion animal relationships are well established in the scientific literature (Serpell, 1996). This concept has extended into the development of animal-assisted interventions (AAI), in which visiting animals participate as an adjunctive treatment in holistic patient care. AAI programs are increasingly popular in various healthcare settings and utilized for patients with widely diverse conditions, including mental health disorders and cancer. Research into the benefits of AAI continues to expand, with the many advantages of these programs supported by numerous epidemiological studies and meta-analyses that standardize and integrate these findings. These data support the hypothesis that AAI programs reduce patient stress, pain, and anxiety levels when incorporated into patients’ treatment plans (Bert et al., 2016; Kamioka et al., 2014; Lundqvist et al., 2017; Maujean et al., 2015; Serpell et al., 2017).

However, infection control is a persistent problem in healthcare settings, both in routine care and in the use of complementary therapies. Similar to known fomites in hospitals, such as door handles and clinicians’ stethoscopes (Haun et al., 2016), therapy animals may unwittingly serve as mechanical vectors of hospital-associated pathogens, and contribute to the transmission of these pathogens between patients, or otherwise within the hospital environment. Patients can experience different levels of animal exposure from petting and licking, which can result in contamination of both the patient and the animal, thereby providing the opportunity for the spread of microorganisms (Lefebvre & Weese, 2009). Therapy animals also have the potential to introduce zoonotic pathogens directly into the hospital environment, for example, via the consumption of contaminated foods (Lefebvre et al., 2008b). Contamination by a pathogen could potentially lead to pathogen replication and stable colonization; this is concerning not only for the possible risk of progression to infection, but also for the risk that the therapy animal may serve as a reservoir and spread these pathogens to the home and larger community (Enoch et al., 2005). Such perceptions of potential infection control challenges and resulting harm could limit the use of AAI programs and detract from their employment as a valid and valuable adjunctive therapy for patients.

This review examines the current literature that focuses on potential hazards associated with hospital-based AAI therapy programs. We assessed both the breadth and quality of existing literature regarding infection control in AAI programs; these are discussed in the context of known and hypothetical pathways of microbial transmission. By identifying knowledge gaps, we provide focus for future research efforts and intervention strategies that will ultimately promote the sustainability of these AAI programs.

2. Methods

3. Results

3.1 Search Outcomes

The initial database search returned a total of 5480 unique results (maximum number of returned articles from Embase), as shown in the flow diagram in Figure 1. After title and abstract screening of these articles, 110 were deemed potentially relevant based on the inclusion criteria. The remaining 5370 articles did not meet our prespecified criteria for inclusion, most commonly because the excluded articles evaluated the benefits of AAI programs on patient care. Upon full-text review of the 110 potentially relevant articles, 86 articles were removed because they did not satisfy the inclusion criteria. An additional five articles were added after reviewing the reference lists of the remaining included papers. These five articles were not found in the initial database search because they were either 1) not located in the selected databases or 2) had improperly labeled keywords. A summary of the final 29 total articles reviewed can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Thirteen articles were reviews or commentaries of current AAI guidelines that refer to therapy animals in healthcare settings, and sixteen articles were data-acquiring or epidemiological studies (6 cohort studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, 4 case reports, and 1 ecological study). Most studies focused on therapy animals broadly or therapy dogs exclusively, but three studies included cats (Boyle et al., 2019; Coughlan et al., 2010; Sillery et al., 2004).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 1.

Overview of the Articles Examined: Epidemiological Studies, listed by type and chronologically

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 2.

Overview of the Articles Examined: Reviews, Guidelines, and Commentaries, listed by type and chronologically

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. PRISMA* Flow Diagram for Search Strategy

* Preferred recording of items for systemic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher et al., 2009)

4. Discussion

While most of the literature currently available on animal-assisted interventions centers mainly on positive human psychosocial outcomes, there is an apparent lack of information and guiding data surrounding the potential infection control challenges to the inclusion of therapy animals in a healthcare setting. As evidenced by the relatively few and mostly small epidemiological studies discussed in this review (n=10), therapy animals can harbor hospital-associated pathogens, and while not validated in controlled research, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that animal contact with patient populations may increase the animal’s risk for contamination with pathogens. This is best evident in the study that showed therapy dogs that visit hospitals have almost five times higher odds of carrying MRSA as therapy dogs who visit other locations, such as schools (Lefebvre et al., 2009). Additional research is needed to investigate whether therapy animals can serve as pathogen vectors, from being contaminated by contact with one patient, and then transmitting these pathogens to another patient, leading to pathogen exchange. This is critical to test since many patients served by these therapy animals have a compromised health status and may be at higher risk of infection compared to the general population.

While there are proposed guidelines published for AAI in hospitals, senior care facilities, and for individual animal therapy organizations, there are significant differences in infection control policies across these groups (Serpell et al., 2020). This can cause confusion among therapy animal handlers and individuals who participate in AAI programs and may be complicated by a lack of standardized, evidence-based standard-of-care protocols that can be universally adopted. Current guidelines, including the SHEA guidelines, are based on biological plausibility and originate from hospital fomite research and zoonotic transmission in other situations (pets in the home, etc.). Yet it is likely that therapy animals, with their unique exposures and ability to serve as an interactive living fomite, may have microbial communities that are different from standard pet animals. Therefore, exposure to animals in an AAI setting may fundamentally differ from exposure to household pets. This unique exposure profile could logically result in different risk factors and protective factors for pathogen contamination for both participants and the therapy animals. As such, infection control guidelines that rely on previous research on fomites and pet ownership may not realistically reflect adequate control measures for therapy animal exposures.

Our review confirmed an even greater lack of quantitative research on hazards other than infectious disease agents in the context of AAI studies. While some articles commented on the risks of phobias, injuries, negative cultural perception of animals, and allergies, none examined these risk factors empirically. Explanations for few study findings in this area include that these highly-trained animals minimize the potential risk of injury and that patients, along with their supervising medical team, will self-select to participate in these programs, thus reducing therapy animal contact by those patients who have phobias or allergies.

Our review also suggested a lack of effective educational campaigns and open communication networks between hospital infection control departments and therapy animal handlers regarding infection risk. This was suggested both by the variability in control practices among institutions and by the knowledge disparities among handlers observed in multiple studies (Boyle et al., 2019; Lefebvre et al., 2006b; Linder et al., 2017). Without these communication channels, therapy animal handlers may not have a clear understanding of the rationale for infection control protocols, as well as the potential risks towards the patients, their therapy animals, and even the handlers themselves. Continued efforts from infection control departments and hospital program facilitators to provide knowledge-based motivation to adhere to hospital-enacted infection control protocols are essential, directed to both therapy animal handlers and healthcare workers involved in AAI sessions. Without such cohesive collaborations, hospital protocols created for AAI programs can be misinterpreted or poorly executed. In order to minimize the potential risk for all involved, attention should be paid to outreach and education programs that promote safe practices for both therapy animal handlers and hospital staff. In addition to efforts to harmonize infection control regulations across healthcare facilities, individuals involved in AAI should work within the hospital to integrate AAI programs into the overall institutional safety culture in order to maximize the benefits of these programs.

A strong point of the established research is the evaluation of risk factors for pathogen carriage by therapy animals, namely animals fed a raw-food diet and those that have increased interaction with patients (through licking and being fed treats) are more likely to carry zoonotic pathogens. Studies that focus on risk factors can inform interventions to minimize pathogen carriage by therapy animals, and potentially decrease transmission to the patients with whom they subsequently interact. Expanding this work to studies that examine patient-level risk factors (such as concurrent disease conditions or specific animal-contact behaviors) or AAI-level risk factors (such as the number of patients interacting with the animal) will additionally inform the safety practices of these programs and have significant clinical impact. Clear hospital communication channels that impart infection control guidelines, backed by robust evidence-based science on potential risk factors, can empower healthcare workers and handlers to identify and minimize behaviors that pose risk to patients, therapy animals, and themselves.

The most significant knowledge gap is the lack of epidemiological data demonstrating or testing the transmission of zoonotic and hospital-associated pathogens related to AAI therapy sessions. The few published studies have small sample sizes (only two studies included more than 100 animals) and limited longitudinal data (only four retrospective or prospective cohort studies, two from the same cohort). This clearly limits statistical power to demonstrate even associations between pathogen carriage and AAI visits, much less actual illnesses associated with such carriage. Other than those three cohorts, most studies were cross-sectional or case reports, which limits causal inference because of their inherent inability to establish temporality, control for confounding, or account for interpersonal variability. The data from these cross-sectional studies and case reports, therefore, have minimal weight in our understanding of how AAI exposure may relate to pathogen carriage in therapy animals, patients, healthcare workers, and the hospital environment.

At present, the studies that have assessed microbial sharing during a therapy session focused only on the microbial carriage of the therapy animal. Testing only the therapy animal demonstrates carriage of a zoonotic pathogen at a single time point, and does not capture a transmission event. Data and evidence for transmission between patients, animals, and the environment are limited without sampling of all these components. Identification of a transmission event requires longitudinal multi-source sampling (humans, animals, and the environment) with molecular typing to identify and distinguish specific microorganisms. Such data are required to trace the source, pathway, and directionality among therapy animals, the hospital environment, and all individuals involved, including patients, visitors, healthcare workers, and therapy animal handlers.

Longitudinal sampling will also allow insight into whether microbial exposure and transient contamination from AAI conditions can progress into stable bacterial replication and colonization, and then progress to a possible infection in both individuals and therapy animals. In the context of hospital-associated pathogens, it is established that exposure is necessary, but not always sufficient, to progress to infection (Weber & Rutala, 2013); longitudinal sampling can capture these stages of progression, and identify risk factors that promote such progression. This is particularly relevant to clinical outcomes in AAI patient participants, many of whom are children or have compromised health status, making pathogen exposure more likely to progress to an infection. Longitudinal sampling of the therapy animal will also test whether these animals can serve as a vector of disease within and between different hospitals, and in the greater community outside of the hospital, as well as evaluate health outcomes in the animals themselves. With only a few published studies conducted in a small number of single hospitals, and often including the same cohort, the present data are clearly of limited generalizability to other populations.

5. Conclusions

Future work in this area should aim to investigate the potential hazards that can occur during a therapy visit, both in terms of potential injury and infection control, and seek to quantify these possible associated hazards, while confirming these hazards do not interfere with the known benefits of AAI. It is recommended that future studies employ a One Health framework, a systems-thinking approach that addresses concerns at the nexus of human health, animal health, and the health of their shared environment, paying particular attention to the relationship between the entities rather than looking at them in isolation (Destoumieux-Garzon et al., 2018). This framework may facilitate future investigations and provide a more holistic view of the microbial dynamics between therapy animals, hospital patients, and the hospital environment. While further research into risk identification is necessary, clinicians and other healthcare workers who implement or are debating implementing an AAI program must also consider their hospital and patient needs, given the clear and established benefits of these adjunctive programs. A rational decision process involves a cost/benefit risk assessment that provides insight into the likely consequences of a proposed action. Balanced with this is the concept of the precautionary principle, which states that without a risk assessment involving hazard identification and analysis, one should minimize exposure to the potential risk. In the case of AAI programs, while there is an ongoing need for corroborating research, the recommended guidelines for animals in the healthcare setting can provide a starting point and scaffold for infection control policies that, when properly applied and followed, have potential to minimize the known and unknown risk factors, while still maintaining the known benefits as an adjunctive patient therapy, with the ultimate goal of making AAI more accessible and sustainable for patients. Promotion of judiciously-executed AAI programs will increase attention to its usage as a complementary therapy, and prompt awareness of the need for further insight into its safety and value as a critical tool for patient benefit.

Conflicts of Interests

None of the authors declare any conflict of interest.

Disclosure statement

None of the authors of this manuscript has a financial interest or benefit arising from the direct applications of this research. No specific funding was received for this project.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization – all authors

Methodology – KRD

Data curation – KRD + KBW

Formal analysis – KRD

Supervision – MFD

Writing (original draft) – KRD

Writing (review & editing) – all authors

Funding Source

Indirect funding for this research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [5R01HD097692-02]. Funding for KRD is provided by a grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center for Occupational Safety and Health [T42 OH0008428].