Visiting dogs are popular in nursing homes. Many methodologies are applied to assess the impact on the residents, comprising both qualitative and quantitative measures. One aim of this inter-disciplinary study was to compare the subjective assessment of two persons attending the same visits and the effect of visit type on their perceptions.
We randomly assigned 150 nursing home residents to three treatment groups that either received a) 12 visits accompanied by a dog (Dog); b) 12 visits accompanied by a dog, including a new activity with the dog during each visit (Dog+Activity) or c) 12 visits without a dog, but with a new activity during each visit (Activity). Apart from the visitor, an observer was present during all visits and both assessed the residents’ perception and satisfaction with the visit. They used a scale running from ‘-5’ (worst possible) to ‘+5’ (best possible visit). A score of ‘0’ described a neutral response, or a visit that was impossible to assess. We analyzed the results in SAS, with T-test (Proc Npar1way) and Spearman correlations (Proc Corr).
Overall, the scores of the visitors (4.1 ± 1.3) and observers (4.0 ± 1.2) did not differ (t= -1.56; P>0.05). However, when comparing the scores given separately for each visit type, the visitor rated the satisfaction with “Dog”visits significantly higher than the observer (t= -02.32; P<0.05; Dog: 4.3±1.5 vs. 4.1±1.4), but we found no difference in other visit types (Dog+Activity: 4.0±1.3 vs. 4.0±1.2; Activity: 4.1±1.5 vs. 4.1±1.0). The correlations between the visitors’ and observers’ assessment were, however, strong for all visit types (Dog: rs=0.89; Dog+Activity: rs=0.83; Activity: rs=0.81), suggesting a very high agreement, regardless of visit type.
The subjective and immediate assessment of the residents’ response to all visit types was very positive. Visitors evaluated the response during visits with a dog and no activity as more positive than the observers. It could be speculated that during visits without a planned activity, the outcome of the visits is more dependent on the visitors’ engagement and effort, and therefore rated higher by the visitor. Furthermore these visits are less structured and perhaps more difficult to assess.