Robot companion cats for people at home with dementia: A qualitative case study on companotics

Abstract

The use of robot companion pets for people in care homes has been extensively studied. The results are largely positive and suggest that they are valuable in enhancing wellbeing, communication and behavioural aspects. However, there has been little research in people’s own homes, possibly due to the cost and complexity of some of the robot pets currently available. As dementia affects people in different ways, this study explores the effects of a robot cat for people in their own homes, without specifically investigating the effects on a particular symptom. We utilised a case study design to investigate the proposition that various factors influence the impact of a robot cat on the person living with dementia and their carer, including acceptability of the robot pet and acceptance of dementia and its symptoms. The qualitative analysis explores the similarities and differences within the data which were gathered during interviews with people with dementia and their families. This analysis revealed four themes: Distraction, Communication, Acceptance and rejection, and Connecting with the cat and connecting with others. These themes were synthesised into two overarching themes: the effect of the cat on mood and behaviour, and The interaction with the cat. We present the acceptability and impact of the robot cat on symptoms of dementia, with data presented across and within the group of participants. Our analysis suggests that benefits of the robot pet were evident, and although this was a small-scale study, where they were accepted, robot pets provided positive outcomes for the participants and their families.

Impacts of Low-cost Robotic Pets for Older Adults and People With Dementia: Scoping Review

“…Most had appropriate research designs (n=4) [ 40 - 43 ] and recruitment strategies (n=5) [ 40 , 41 , 43 - 45 ]. However, the data collection and analysis methods were not clearly described in 4 studies [ 42 , 46 , 47 ]. These factors subject the studies to assessor bias and reporting biases [ 48 ].…”

“…The majority (n=5) used the JfA robotic cat [ 40 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 47 ], while the others (n=4) employed both the robotic cat and dog [ 41 , 44 , 46 , 50 ]. Only 1 study offered participants’ their choice of robotic pet (ie, cat or dog) and reported no differences between the type of pet to the intervention outcomes [ 44 ].…”

“…Only 1 delivered the intervention both individually and communally [ 41 ]. Most (n=5) provided the robopet to participants on a full-time basis [ 42 - 44 , 50 ]. In 1 study, their use progressed from structured 1-2 hour sessions during the first 2-3 months to full-time use by the third month [ 41 ].…”

“…People with dementia were reported to have developed companionship with their robotic pets [ 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 ] and in some instances had formed a strong bond and attachment with the robotic pets [ 41 ]. Only 1 study conducted a quantitative evaluation of loneliness with cognitively healthy older adults using the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) loneliness scale.…”

Unethical governance: capacity legislation and the exclusion of people diagnosed with dementias from research

“…University RECs are not recognised by the Secretary of State and therefore cannot legally review proposals that invoke the MCA (HRA, 2019). I am aware of instances in which university RECs have reviewed and approved research that falls under the MCA (for recent examples, see Griffiths et al, 2019Griffiths et al, , 2020Orfanos et al, 2020;Pike et al, 2020;Shoesmith et al, 2020). This appears to arise due to an interpretation of the MCA as only applying to research involving participants who lack capacity, and therefore not applying to research involving people with a diagnosis who do not lack capacity.…”