Pet therapy: all the benefits (and limitations) of dogs for our health

IN BRIEF

• Pet therapy (or animal-assisted interventions) with dogs is used in clinical and educational settings to support emotional well-being, sociality, and certain behavioral functions.
• Reviews and meta-analyses show more consistent effects on depressive symptoms, quality of life, and social interaction in some populations—particularly the elderly and children—but the quality of studies is variable. [1]
• Transient physiological effects (e.g., reduction in blood pressure or stress) are described in clinical studies, but are not always replicated and are often short-lived. [5]
• Efficacy depends on intervention characteristics: type of animal, duration, frequency, context (hospital, nursing home, school), and integration with conventional therapies. [1][3]
• Evidence supports a complementary and contextualized use of pet therapy, with attention to safety standards, animal welfare, and operator training.

Abstract: what does science say?

Pet therapy with dogs includes structured interventions where trained animals participate in sessions aimed at improving psychological, social, or physical aspects of people. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate moderate benefits on depressive symptoms, quality of life, and social interaction in selected groups (elderly, psychiatric patients, children with developmental disorders). Several clinical studies report immediate improvements in mood, reduction in anxiety, and physiological changes (e.g., blood pressure), but long-term effects and their generalizability remain uncertain. Efficacy varies based on "dose" (duration and frequency of visits), context (hospital, school, nursing home), animal species, and quality of team training. Methodological limitations (small samples, inadequate controls, heterogeneity of outcomes) require cautious interpretation: pet therapy appears to be a useful practice as a complement, not a substitute, for established treatments.

What it means in practice

For those working in healthcare, education, or social fields, pet therapy with dogs can be considered a complementary tool to facilitate contact, motivation, and certain emotional or behavioral outcomes. Reviews analyzing interventions aimed at the elderly and adults show effects on mood and quality of life indicators, especially when interventions are repeated and conducted in a structured manner. [1]

Organizing an intervention: key elements

A well-designed program specifies objectives (e.g., reduction of loneliness, facilitation of motor rehabilitation), the duration and frequency of sessions, the selection and training criteria for the dog and handler, and safety procedures (hygiene, allergy screening, risk assessment). The observed effect largely depends on these details; random or non-standardized interventions have less reliable results. [1]

Who it can be most useful for

Populations in which studies have documented more frequent benefits include: elderly people in residential facilities (depressive symptoms, quality of life), psychiatric patients in residential settings, children with social interaction difficulties or acute pain in a hospital setting. Pet therapy is often more effective as a complement to standard rehabilitation or psychological pathways. [3][4]

Specific Evidence and Areas of Application

Children and Social Development

In school and therapeutic settings, the presence of animals (even small ones, such as rabbits or guinea pigs) has been associated with an increase in positive social behaviors and a reduction in isolating attitudes in children with social development difficulties. Controlled studies in a school environment have shown observable improvements in peer interactions during sessions with animals compared to control conditions. [2]

People with Dementia and the Elderly

Meta-analyses and reviews evaluating dog visitation programs or animal-assisted interventions in the elderly and people with dementia describe variable effects: some summaries report reductions in depressive symptoms and transient behavioral improvements, while others highlight heterogeneity and low methodological quality of the included studies. The body of evidence suggests potential benefits but requires more rigorous and controlled interventions to define the efficacy and duration of effects. [3]

Mental Health and Psychiatric Settings

Randomized controlled trials and clinical studies in patients with chronic psychiatric disorders have reported increases in subjective well-being and some improvements in quality of life after pet therapy programs. The results support a social and motivational support role, but do not prove that pet therapy is a unique or sufficient therapy for severe psychiatric conditions. [4]

Physiological Effects and Stress

Some studies measure physiological parameters (blood pressure, heart rate) before and after sessions with dogs and report transient reductions in signs of physiological activation in some populations. Evidence indicates that these changes may be real but are generally short-lived and depend on the context of the session and the population evaluated. [5]

Pain and Pediatric Procedures

Research on hospitalized children shows that the use of animals can reduce anxiety and pain perception during medical procedures in some controlled studies; however, the effects vary with the type of intervention and measurement tools, so the results should be interpreted with caution. [6]

PTSD and Trauma

For people with post-traumatic stress disorder, the literature includes observational studies and some controlled evidence suggesting possible benefits on specific symptoms and emotional regulation. Reviews indicate promising results, but conclusive certainty is lacking due to the variability of the studies. [7]

KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER

• Dog-assisted pet therapy can improve mood, quality of life, and social interaction in some populations, but the benefits are not universal. [1][3]
• The effect strongly depends on the dose, frequency, setting, animal species, and quality of the program. [1]
• There are signs of transient physiological changes (e.g., reduction of stress measured by blood pressure or heart rate). [5]
• The best evidence concerns its use as a complement to standard care, not as a therapeutic substitute. [4][8]
• It is essential to provide safety protocols, criteria for dog training, and animal welfare protection.

Limitations of the Evidence

The literature on pet therapy has limitations that require attention before drawing strong conclusions. Many studies are small, with suboptimal designs (lack of randomization, inactive controls, non-blinded observers). Observational studies can show associations but do not prove causality: for example, mood improvement after a visit with a dog may be influenced by expectations, additional attention from staff, or more favorable social contexts.

Critical variables often not standardized include: animal species and behavior, handler training, duration and frequency of sessions, outcome indicators (self-assessments vs. objective measures). This heterogeneity prevents direct comparisons and reduces the certainty of aggregate estimates. Future studies should use randomized designs, larger samples, predefined outcomes, and longer follow-up to clarify the duration and extent of effects. [8]

Editorial Conclusion

Pet therapy with dogs is a well-established practice in many contexts and is supported by a body of studies suggesting benefits on some emotional, social, and, at times, physiological outcomes. However, the methodological variability and non-uniform quality of the research necessitate caution: it is currently a complementary tool, useful if designed and integrated with quality criteria, animal welfare protection, and safety procedures. For patients, caregivers, and professionals, the decision to introduce dog-assisted programs should be based on clear objectives, individual assessment, informed consent, and monitoring of results. Clinical recommendations require further well-conducted studies to move from promising associations to robust causal evidence.

Editorial Note

This update has been prepared according to criteria of informational quality: synthesis of the most relevant systematic reviews and clinical studies, transparency regarding the limitations of the evidence, and non-prescriptive practical indications. The article does not replace individual medical advice.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

1. Chang, H. et al. Animal‐Assisted Therapy as an Intervention for Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis to Guide Evidence‐Based Practice. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12484
2. O'Haire ME, McKenzie SJ, Beck AM, Slaughter V. Social behaviors increase in children with autism in the presence of animals compared to toys. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e57010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057010
3. Borgi M, Collacchi B, Giuliani A, Cirulli F. Dog Visiting Programs for Managing Depressive Symptoms in Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis. Gerontologist. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny149
4. Sahebalzamani M, Rezaei O, Fattah Moghadam L. Animal-assisted therapy on happiness and life quality of chronic psychiatric patients living in psychiatric residential care homes: a randomized controlled study. BMC Psychiatry. 2020;20:575. https://doi.org/1186/s12888-020-02980-8
5. Nilsson A. The effects of a therapy dog on the blood pressure and heart rate of older residents in a nursing home. Anthrozoös. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1505268
6. Wang C, et al. Effectiveness of animal-assisted therapy on pain in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2020.12.009
7. O'Callaghan E, et al. Effectiveness of animal-assisted interventions for children and adults with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2021.1879713
8. Wagstaff C, et al. Animal-assisted therapy in adults: A systematic review. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice. 2018;32:169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.06.011