For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
58
references
 Top references
cited by
4
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      245
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Daily Mobility and Social Interactions Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Pet Dogs: A Scoping Review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Dogs are part of many people’s lives and are involved in interventions to improve the well-being of older adults in institutional settings. However, the literature on the impact of pet dogs on community-dwelling older adults is still relatively limited. This study mapped the impact of having a companion dog on the daily mobility and social interactions of community-dwelling older adults using a scoping review. Electronic databases were searched, and studies written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish that were published in a peer-reviewed journal were identified. After a careful review, 26 eligible studies were identified, and relevant findings were extracted. The main findings indicated that having a dog may promote or hinder daily mobility and social interactions and that having a dog is about routines and sharing affection. More research is needed to clarify what makes having a companion dog key to promoting active and healthy aging.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

          Lisa O'Malley, Hilary Arksey (2005)
          Article 0 comments Cited 6795 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Danielle Levac, Heather Colquhoun, Kelly K. O’Brien (2010)
            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2957 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

              Andrea Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin … (2016)
              Background Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. Methods We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. Results After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. Conclusion The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Article 0 comments Cited 426 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Appl Gerontol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Appl Gerontol
                Journal ID (hwp): spjag
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JAG
                Title: Journal of Applied Gerontology
                Publisher: SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                ISSN (Print): 0733-4648
                ISSN (Electronic): 1552-4523
                Publication date (Electronic): 26 August 2022
                Publication date (Print): December 2022
                Volume: 41
                Issue: 12
                Pages: 2609-2623
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Ringgold 37829, universityUniversity of Aveiro; , Aveiro, Portugal
                [2 ]CINTESIS@RISE, Department of Education and Psychology, Ringgold 56062, universityUniversity of Aveiro; , Aveiro, Portugal
                [3 ]University of Coimbra, Centre of Interdisciplinary Studies (CEIS20), Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Portugal
                [4 ]Centre of Studies in Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), Ringgold 37829, universityUniversity of Coimbra; , Coimbra, Portugal
                Author notes
                [*]Suellen Costa, Department of Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. Email: suellen@ 123456ua.pt
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4378-3378
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-7119
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1592-0953
                Article
                Publisher ID: 10.1177_07334648221116633
                DOI: 10.1177/07334648221116633
                PMC ID: 9669735
                PubMed ID: 36029015
                SO-VID: a55945ff-fb5b-43b1-87aa-3f2d18b4039e
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2022
                License:

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Date received : 18 March 2022
                Date accepted : 11 July 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100001871;
                Award ID: PTDC/GES-TRA/32121/2017
                Award ID: UIDB/04084/2020
                Award ID: UIDB/4255/2020
                Award ID: UIDP/4255/2020
                Categories
                Subject: Systematic Reviews
                Custom metadata
                typesetter ts10

                Keywords: companion dogs,older adults,social interaction,daily mobility
                Data availability:
                Keywords: companion dogs, older adults, social interaction, daily mobility

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content245

                See all similar

                Cited by4

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors830

                See all reference authors