Background: Animal-assisted intervention (AAIs) represent an adequate expression of integrated medicine, according to the One Health approach. We argue that AAIs are interventions based on interspecific relationships between humans and animals. Although there are many studies on the effects of AAIs on animal and human health and wellbeing, research is still needed to give us more data. For example, information is still lacking on the aspects characterizing and influencing the interspecific relationships occurring in AAIs. The efficacy of an intervention based on interspecific relationships will be influenced by different factors, such as attachment styles and personalities of both the animal and the handler, an appropriate choice of animal species and their individuality, animal educational training techniques, the relationship between the handler and the animal, and relational reciprocity between animal, the patients, and members of the working team. Method: This article aims to contribute to the study of interspecific relationships in AAIs via theoretical considerations. An interspecific relationship determines the result of safe interventions, which directly influences the welfare of the animal. Results and considerations: AAIs should be evaluated systemically as a network within a process in which every component interacts with and influences other components. Standardized methods using appropriate tests and parameters are needed to better select appropriate animals (i.e., species and individual subjects) using interspecific relational competences as well as appropriate educational training methods and health protocols to assess potential risks.

Animal-assisted interventions are widely implemented in different contexts worldwide. Particularly, animal-assisted therapies and animal-assisted activities are often implemented in hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and other health facilities. These interventions bring several benefits to patients but can also expose them to the risk of infection with potentially zoonotic agents. The dog is the main animal species involved used in these interventions. Therefore, we aimed at collecting data regarding the occurrence of the pathogens ESKAPE (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp.) in dogs, in order to draft guidelines concerning the possible monitoring of dogs involved in animal-assisted therapies and animal-assisted activities in healthcare facilities. We performed a literature search using the PRISMA guidelines to examine three databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Out of 2604 records found, 52 papers were identified as eligible for inclusion in the review/meta-analysis. Sixteen papers reported data on E. faecium; 16 on S. aureus; nine on K. pneumoniae; four on A. baumannii; eight on P. aeruginosa; and six on Enterobacter spp. This work will contribute to increased awareness to the potential zoonotic risks posed by the involvement of dogs in animal-assisted therapies, and animal-assisted activities in healthcare facilities.

Recently, animal-assisted interventions (AAIs), which are defined as psychological, educational, and rehabilitation support activities, have become widespread in different contexts. For many years, they have been a subject of interest in the international scientific community and are at the center of an important discussion regarding their effectiveness and the most appropriate practices for their realization. We carried out an umbrella review (UR) of systematic reviews (SRs), created for the purpose of exploring the literature and aimed at deepening the terminological and methodological aspects of AAIs. It is created by exploring the online databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. The SRs present in the high-impact indexed search engines Web of Sciences and Scopus are selected. After screening, we selected 15 SRs that met the inclusion criteria. All papers complained of the poor quality of AAIs; some considered articles containing interventions that did not always correspond to the terminology they have explored and whose operating practices were not always comparable. This stresses the need for the development and consequent diffusion of not only operational protocols, but also research protocols which provide for the homogeneous use of universally recognized terminologies, thus facilitating the study, deepening, and comparison between the numerous experiences described.

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) usually contribute to the well-being and health of users/patients, but it is essential that the animals involved in these activities do not represent a source of zoonoses. This systematic review focused on the evaluation of the potential risk of the transmission of Toxocara by dogs’ fur, considering their involvement as the main animal species in AAIs. Three databases were considered: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and the PRISMA guidelines were used. Out of 162 articles found, 14 papers were identified as eligible for inclusion in the review. Although the findings were very heterogeneous, they showed that regular parasitological surveillance to plan effective control programs is strongly needed to guarantee the health of pets and consequently the public health, according to the concept of One Health. Since AAIs involve patients and/or users potentially susceptible, it is very important to appropriately treat dogs enrolled in these interventions after an accurate diagnosis of parasitic zoonoses.

Dogs are considered the most important species involved in animal-assisted therapy (AAT), and the scientific literature focuses on the benefits linked to the involvement of dogs in various therapeutic areas. In this study, we carried out a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, exploring the scientific literature from the last 5 years (2016–2021) on three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to highlight the characteristics of the dogs involved in AATs. Based on the scientific literature relevant to such dogs, we considered different parameters (i.e., number, age, sex, breed, temperament, methods of choice and training, health status, research goals, and activities with dogs) to include studies in our paper. After screening 4331 papers identified on the searched databases, we selected 38 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the included articles showed that the characteristics of the dogs were neglected. Our findings indicated a lack of information about the dogs, as well as the absence of standardized and univocal criteria for dog selection, training programs, and health protocols.