Psychosocial Health Interventions by Social Robots: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Background Social robots that can communicate and interact with people offer exciting opportunities for improved health care access and outcomes. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on health or well-being outcomes has not yet been clearly synthesized across all health domains where social robots have been tested. Objective This study aimed to undertake a systematic review examining current evidence from RCTs on the effects of psychosocial interventions by social robots on health or well-being. Methods Medline, PsycInfo, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Engineering Village searches across all years in the English language were conducted and supplemented by forward and backward searches. The included papers reported RCTs that assessed changes in health or well-being from interactions with a social robot across at least 2 measurement occasions. Results Out of 408 extracted records, 27 trials met the inclusion criteria: 6 in child health or well-being, 9 in children with autism spectrum disorder, and 12 with older adults. No trials on adolescents, young adults, or other problem areas were identified, and no studies had interventions where robots spontaneously modified verbal responses based on speech by participants. Most trials were small (total N=5 to 415; median=34), only 6 (22%) reported any follow-up outcomes (2 to 12 weeks; median=3.5) and a single-blind assessment was reported in 8 (31%). More recent trials tended to have greater methodological quality. All papers reported some positive outcomes from robotic interventions, although most trials had some measures that showed no difference or favored alternate treatments. Conclusions Controlled research on social robots is at an early stage, as is the current range of their applications to health care. Research on social robot interventions in clinical and health settings needs to transition from exploratory investigations to include large-scale controlled trials with sophisticated methodology, to increase confidence in their efficacy.

Role of Assistive Robots in the Care of Older People: Survey Study Among Medical and Nursing Students

“…Although the development of robotics may raise some ethical issues [ 36 ], none of the students participating in our study showed any ethical concerns about who could decide to turn off the robot or set it up, similar to the results in other studies [ 31 ]. The surveyed students believed that older people should not be able to turn off the robot completely for their safety.…”

Robots, AI, and Cognitive Training in an Era of Mass Age-Related Cognitive Decline: A Systematic Review

“…For example, ''Pet robot intervention for people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails'' [8], examined behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). ''Psychosocial Health Interventions by Social Robots: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials'' [73] generalized from interventions with children, people with autism and older adults. Finally, the systematic review ''Robotics to Enable Older Adults to Remain Living at Home'' [74] was excluded due to methodological weakness identified by its researchers.…”

Technologically-enhanced psychological interventions for older adults: a scoping review

“…A few studies have shown further benefits, providing encouraging results in contrast to the hypothesis that robotic devices only focus on an emotional level, but can be used significantly as cognitive stimulators, optimizing both seniors' interactivity and processing ability [35,43]. Results from robotic psychological interventions are usually described in terms of better or improved older adults related outcomes, like more efficient cognitive or neural functioning, improved anxiety coping abilities, or better quality of life [44].…”

“…However, one limitation of some studies included in this scoping review, especially those dealing with older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment is that those observed positive outcomes often imply less decline, rather than real positive improvements [44][45][46].…”