How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

Abstract

Background Robopets are small animal‐like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. Objective To bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of older people living in care homes. Design Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. Data sources We searched 13 electronic databases from inception to July 2018 and undertook forward and backward citation chasing. Methods Eligible studies reported the views and experiences of robopets from residents, family members and staff (qualitative studies using recognised methods of qualitative data collection and analysis) and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of care home residents (randomised controlled trials, randomised crossover trials and cluster randomised trials). Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. We used the Wallace criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the evidence. We developed a logic model with stakeholders and used this as a framework to guide data extraction and synthesis. Where appropriate, we used meta‐analysis to combine effect estimates from quantitative studies. Results Nineteen studies (10 qualitative, 2 mixed methods and 7 randomised trials) met the inclusion criteria. Interactions with robopets were described as having a positive impact on aspects of well‐being including loneliness, depression and quality of life by residents and staff, although there was no corresponding statistically significant evidence from meta‐analysis for these outcomes. Meta‐analysis showed evidence of a reduction in agitation with the robopet “Paro” compared to control (−0.32 [95% CI −0.61 to −0.04, p = 0.03]). Not everyone had a positive experience of robopets. Conclusions Engagement with robopets appears to have beneficial effects on the health and well‐being of older adults living in care homes, but not all chose to engage. Whether the benefits can be sustained are yet to be investigated. Implications for practice Robopets have the potential to benefit people living in care homes, through increasing engagement and interaction. With the robopet acting as a catalyst, this engagement and interaction may afford comfort and help reduce agitation and loneliness.

Enablers and barriers to the implementation of socially assistive humanoid robots in health and social care: a systematic review

“…Longitudinal studies can provide the opportunity to investigate whether fear of using a new and unfamiliar technology, or losing interest in a new technology (diminishing novelty effect), are related to negative attitudes. Abbott et al 8 in their review of the use of social robotic pets (animal-like social robots) found similar mixed feelings from the different stakeholders. The fact that people have very strong feelings on the opposite sides of the spectrum, either very positive or very negative, is significant to implementation and requires a careful investigation.…”

“…In a systematic review of the literature about the use of different available technologies directed to assist older adults, robotic devices and robots were viewed as an encouraging technology that can assist and prolong older adults’ independent living 5. Corroborating this finding, a few additional reviews of the literature have indicated that: (i) SAHRs could have multiple roles in the care of older adults such as in affective therapy and cognitive training6 and (ii) they could be beneficial in reducing anxiety, agitation, loneliness and improving quality of life, engagement and interaction (especially when used as a therapeutic tool when caring for patients with dementia) 7–9. In addition, reviews related to the acceptance of robots have found it being influenced by numerous factors, such as the perceived need for the technology, the user’s previous experiences with it, age, level of education, expectations about what the technology can do, attitudes and cultural background;10 in fact, robots that were programmed to use verbal and non-verbal communication familiar to the user and to their cultural background were more easily accepted by users 11.…”

Artificial Intelligence in the healthcare of older people

“…Thus, systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased signi icantly from baseline in residents following an interaction with a seal companion robot, Paro [33]. Similarly, reported loneliness and depression decreased due to discussing and talking to the robot [34]. Robopets in general, including Paro, have a positive impact on the general physical health, well-being and quality of life among older people living in care homes, and also signi icantly reduce agitation (by 68%), as shown in a systematic review of 19 studies [35].…”

Technological Care

“…However, as 40 % of the Norwegian population hold animals as pets [35], and this number falls below 10 % for older adults [36], this area might be explored; especially as pets have positive effects on well-being [37]. Experiments with digital pets have produced varied results, but with a positive tendency [7,38,39].…”