How pets may help people live well with aphasia.

• What pet ownership is like for people with aphasia.
• How pets may help or make daily life harder.
• How pets affect wellbeing, communication and social contact.
• How health workers might include pets in person-centred aphasia care.

Interviews to learn from people's own words and experiences around pet ownership.

• The researchers found three main themes: caring for pets, connection with pets and connection with people.
• These themes captured both the practical responsibilities of caring for a pet and the emotional and social dimensions of pet ownership.
• All six people said pet care gave routine, responsibility, purpose and motivation.
• Pets gave companionship, comfort and acceptance. People could talk or gesture without fear of being judged.
• Participants said talking with pets gave more chances to communicate. Some felt it helped confidence, word finding or fluency.
• Pets helped some people connect with family, friends, neighbours and the community.
• Pet care could also be hard. Fatigue, movement problems, planning, talking with vets and giving commands were barriers.
• Pet behaviour, worry, cost, guilt and grief after a pet died could reduce wellbeing or social activity.
• Family, support workers, helpful vets, simple commands and adjusted care tasks helped people stay involved.

• Aphasia can reduce social contact, confidence, independence and wellbeing.
• Pets can support people with other long-term health conditions.
• Very little research had asked people with aphasia about pets.
• Most earlier aphasia research only looked at dogs or trained therapy animals.

• A pet may offer company, purpose and an easier way to communicate.
• A pet is not right for everyone. Pet care needs time, money, movement, planning and support.
• People with aphasia should be asked whether pets are important in their lives.
• A speech pathologist may use pet names, simple commands, vet scripts or dog-park conversations as meaningful communication goals.
• Visual schedules may help with feeding, medicines, vaccinations and vet visits.
• Families and support workers can support difficult tasks while keeping the person with aphasia involved.

Six people with aphasia completed an interview of about one hour. The researchers used prepared questions and also let people explain their experiences freely.

Interviews happened in each person's home, with the pet present.

Questions were given in advance. Researchers used communication support and watched for fatigue or distress.

Three people had a family member present to support communication.

Researchers looked for repeated ideas. They found 106 labels for ideas, which the grouped into 30 categories, nine subthemes and three main themes.

The themes were linked to a framework for organising information about health and daily life.

A person with aphasia who owned pets helped design, test, check and report the study.

Not applicable - this study did not test a treatment. It explored experiences of owning or caring for pets.

People with aphasia can have less social contact and fewer chances to take part in community life.

Pets may give company, emotional support, routine and reasons to meet other people.

Pets also need care. This can create physical, practical, emotional and financial demands.

• The study did not test pet ownership or a treatment, so it did not expose people to treatment risks.
• Talking for about one hour could cause fatigue or frustration.
• Talking about pet loss could cause sadness.
• Aphasia could lead to misunderstandings during an interview.
• Researchers used consent, home interviews, questions in advance, communication support and checks for fatigue or distress.

People had to be over 18 years old and speak English.

They had to have aphasia for more than six months.

They had to own or care for a pet after aphasia began.

They had to be willing and able to give informed consent.

People with severe aphasia could take part.

People were excluded if they had primary progressive aphasia, severe cognitive decline, or severe vision or hearing difficulties.

Six adults with aphasia took part: four women and two men.

They were aged from 50 to 75 years.

Four people had aphasia after stroke, one after a brain tumour and one after traumatic brain injury.

Aphasia ranged from mild to moderate-severe.

Time since brain injury ranged from two to 16 years.

Three people lived alone. Three lived with a partner or family.

They owned or cared for dogs, cats and, through family, fish after aphasia began.

Interviews let people explain what their pets meant to them in their own way.

Home interviews let pets be present and helped people use photos and real examples.

Communication support made participation more accessible.

A health and daily life framework helped the team organise the findings.

Involving a person with aphasia helped keep the questions and process meaningful.

Recruitment lasted one month, and the data was collected over two years ago. The paper was received by the journal on 19 December 2025 and accepted on 7 May 2026.

The study was done in the Adelaide area through local aphasia support groups. The interviews took place in people's homes.

The paper does not report a funding source. The authors reported no conflict of interest.

• Six people are too few to represent all people with aphasia or all pet owners.
• Recruitment through metropolitan groups may have missed people in rural areas or people who are less connected to services.
• The sample had limited cultural diversity and mostly involved dogs and cats.
• Aphasia may have caused misunderstandings or made it hard for some people to explain details.
• The study did not compare pet owners with people who did not own pets. It cannot prove that pets caused the reported benefits.

The findings are useful early evidence, but they cannot show what all people with aphasia experience.

• Strength: a person with aphasia helped through the whole study. The team also used aphasia-friendly support.
• Strength: several researchers checked the ideas and themes. The team checked that it understood what people meant.
• Strength: the team used a recognised checklist that helps researchers report interview studies clearly.
• Limit: only six people took part. They came from metropolitan aphasia groups and had limited cultural diversity.
• Limit: Aphasia may have caused some misunderstandings or reduced the detail people could give.

• Include more people from different cultures and places.
• Study a wider range of pets and the experiences of family members.
• Test practical supports for pet care, vet communication and grief.
• Explore safe ways to include a person's own pet in meaningful aphasia goals.
• Learn which people benefit from pet ownership and what support they need.

By contacting the lead researcher, Prof. Maria Kambanaros maria.kambanaros at adelaide.edu.au