Robotic Seals as Therapeutic Tools in an Aged Care Facility: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Robots, including robotic seals, have been used as an alternative to therapies such as animal assisted therapy in the promotion of health and social wellbeing of older people in aged care facilities. There is limited research available that evaluates the effectiveness of robot therapies in these settings. The aim of this study was to identify, explore, and describe the impact of the use of Paro robotic seals in an aged care facility in a regional Australian city. A qualitative, descriptive, exploratory design was employed. Data were gathered through interviews with the three recreational therapists employed at the facility who were also asked to maintain logs of their interactions with the Paro and residents. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. Three major themes were identified from the analyses of these data: “a therapeutic tool that's not for everybody,” “every interaction is powerful,” and “keeping the momentum.” Findings support the use of Paro as a therapeutic tool, revealing improvement in emotional state, reduction of challenging behaviours, and improvement in social interactions of residents. The potential benefits justify the investment in Paro, with clear evidence that these tools can have a positive impact that warrants further exploration.

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

“…The initial searches identified 2,931 unique papers. Of these, 344 were selected for full‐text review and 19 studies (reported in 27 papers) met the inclusion criteria (see Figure for reasons for exclusion): 10 qualitative studies (Birks, Bodak, Barlas, Harwood, & Pether, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Chang, Sabanovic, & Huber, ; Giusti & Marti, ; Gustafsson, Svanberg, & Müllersdorf, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Jung, van der Leij, & Kelders, ; Moyle et al, ; Niemelä, Määttä, & Ylikauppila, ; Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ), 2 mixed methods (randomised trials with qualitative elements), reported across 8 papers (Mervin et al, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Moyle, ; Robinson, Macdonald, Kerse, & Broadbent, , ) and seven randomised trials reported in nine papers (Banks, Willoughby, & Banks, ; Joranson, Pedersen, Rokstad, & Ihlebaek, , ; Libin & Cohen‐Mansfield, ; Moyle et al, ; Petersen, Houston, Qin, Tague, & Studley, ; Thodberg, Sorensen, Christensen, et al, ; Thodberg, Sørensen, Videbech, et al, ; Valenti Soler et al, ). An update search, carried out in July 2018 across all databases with de‐duping against those already screened, found no additional included papers or studies.…”

“…Most studies involved assessing the effects or perceived impacts or experiences of specific sessions spent with a robopet. These sessions could be facilitated by therapists or researchers (Birks et al, ; Chang et al, ; Giusti & Marti, ; Gustafsson et al, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Moyle et al, ; Robinson, Broadbent, & MacDonald, ) or resident‐led with residents interacting with the robot as they wished. The robots were used in either a group or an individual context, or both.…”

“…All studies were conducted within the past 15 years. Five studies were conducted in the United States (Banks et al, ; Birks et al, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Chang et al, ; Petersen et al, ) and four in Australia (Birks et al, ; Moyle et al, , , ), with the remaining studies taking place in Italy (Giusti & Marti, ; Iacono & Marti, ), New Zealand (Robinson, Macdonald, Kerse, & Broadbent, ), Denmark (Thodberg, Sorensen, Christensen, et al, ), Finland (Niemelä et al, ), Germany (Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ), the Netherlands (Jung et al, ), Norway (Joranson, Pedersen, Rokstad, & Ihlebaek, ), Spain (Valenti Soler et al, ) and Sweden (Gustafsson et al, ). The studies involved more than 800 residents (the total number is not clear as two observation studies did not report the number of residents observed) (Chang & Sabanovic, ; Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ).…”

“…Positive behavioural responses were demonstrated through residents touching, petting, stroking, holding and hugging the robopet (Birks et al, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Jung et al, ; Moyle et al, , ). Visual responses (Birks et al, ; Gustafsson et al, ; Moyle et al, ) were often reported in terms of “alertness” and staff involved in a trial perceived that residents appeared to be more alert when they participated in activities with Paro (Moyle et al, ). One professional caregiver reported on an intervention with JustoCat in a care home and highlighted how she perceived an “introverted” resident to have had moments of “‘waking up” and becoming “more aware and alert” (Gustafsson et al, ).…”

“…One professional caregiver reported on an intervention with JustoCat in a care home and highlighted how she perceived an “introverted” resident to have had moments of “‘waking up” and becoming “more aware and alert” (Gustafsson et al, ). Interacting with robopets induced verbal responses with residents talking to the robopets either directly or with others (Birks et al, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Giusti & Marti, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Moyle et al, ; Robinson et al, ). Verbal responses were often positive showing appreciation for the robot using words such as “beautiful” and “cute” (Giusti & Marti, ; Iacono & Marti, ; Moyle et al, ; Robinson et al, ).…”