↓ Skip to main content

Animal-assisted interventions as innovative tools for mental health

Overview of attention for article published in Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 158)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
244 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Animal-assisted interventions as innovative tools for mental health
Published in
Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, December 2011
DOI 10.4415/ann_11_04_04
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cirulli F, Borgi M, Berry A, Francia N, Alleva E, Cirulli, Francesca, Borgi, Marta, Berry, Alessandra, Francia, Nadia, Alleva, Enrico

Abstract

There is a growing interest for the potential health benefits of human-animal interactions. Although scientific evidence on the effects is far from being consistent, companion animals are used with a large number of human subjects, ranging from children to elderly people, who benefit most from emotional support. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this paper examines the potential for domesticated animals, such as dogs, for providing emotional and physical opportunities to enrich the lives of many frail subjects. In particular, we focus on innovative interventions, including the potential use of dogs to improve the life of emotionally-impaired children, such as those affected by autism spectrum disorders. Overall an ever increasing research effort is needed to search for the mechanism that lie behind the human-animal bond as well as to provide standardized methodologies for a cautious and effective use of animal-assisted interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 241 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 19%
Student > Master 41 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Other 15 6%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 43 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 50 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 8%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 49 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,460,810
of 19,911,470 outputs
Outputs from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#26
of 158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,024
of 240,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,911,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 158 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them