“She Had a Smile on Her Face as Wide as the Great Australian Bite”: A Qualitative Examination of Family Perceptions of a Therapeutic Robot and a Plush Toy

Abstract

Family members were keen for their older relative with dementia to use a social robot that moved and engaged with them, and Plush Toys that were static and unresponsive were perceived as being unimportant in improving quality of life. However, the current cost of Paro was identified by family members as a major limitation to use.

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.…”

“…A low risk of bias for random sequence generation was observed for the majority of the trials, suggesting that selection bias across the studies was low. Most studies performed poorly in terms of the blinding of participants and personnel, with only one study at a low risk of bias for this criterion (Moyle et al, ). The majority of the studies performed power calculations, and 4 of the trials clearly accounted for all of their participants in the reporting of the studies (Joranson et al, ; Moyle et al, , ; Robinson et al, ).…”

“…Five studies noted that robopets appeared to awaken memories which increased communication with care staff and family members (Birks et al, ; Gustafsson et al, ; Moyle et al, , ; Pfadenhauer & Dukat, ). In some cases, the robopet could facilitate more focussed memories of specific activities or time spent with animals and pets: “…Participant “J” could not visualise CuDDler …the texture and fur reminded “J” of her recently deceased dog…CuDDler evoked fond memories of the animal she missed holding and touching” (Moyle et al, ).…”

“…She had a smile on her face as wide as the Great Australian Bite. It definitely made a difference to her mood” (Moyle et al, ). It did not appear to matter whether the robopet was perceived as artificial or real: “It doesn't matter, because I can see that the robotic cat has an impact on my dad's quality of life” (Gustafsson et al, ).…”

“…Three studies, all involving residents with dementia, assessed the effects of robopets on agitation. Two of the studies (Joranson et al, ; Moyle et al, ), comparing Paro to a standard‐care control, provided data enabling pooling: the pooled SMD for effect on agitation was −0.32 (95%CI −0.61 to −0.04, p = 0.03), see Figure . The third study, a pilot study comparing a robotic cat to a plush toy in a crossover trial, reported no significant effect on agitation (Libin & Cohen‐Mansfield, ).…”