Using a therapeutic companion robot for dementia symptoms in long-term care: reflections from a cluster-RCT

Moyle, Wendy; Jones, Cindy; Murfield, Jenny; Thalib, Lukman; Beattie, Elizabeth; Shum, David; Draper, Brian

doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1421617

Cited by 62 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some studies offered descriptions of residents being uninterested in responding to the robopet (Birks et al, ; Moyle et al, , ). There were residents who refused to interact with Paro to any significant degree and only did so when asked, and there was one example where the presentation of Paro evoked a strong verbal and behavioural negative response (Moyle et al, ). Residents’ responses were observed to change over time; for some residents, their responses changed from negative to positive and could even vary day‐to‐day, and for others, responsiveness decreased over time as the robopet blended into their everyday routines (Birks et al, ; Chang & Sabanovic, ; Moyle et al, , ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Abbott

Orr

McGill

et al. 2019

Int J Older People Nursing

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Abbott

Orr

McGill

et al. 2019

Int J Older People Nursing

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, several studies began reporting the positive impact of SARs on the daily living and quality of life of older people . Many of these studies examined animal‐shaped companion robots and their therapeutic effects on older people . Takayanagi et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the impact of age, gender and dementia on communication‐robot interventions in residential care homes

Obayashi

Kodate

Masuyama

2020

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The primary aim of this study was to examine the impact of age, gender and the stage of dementia on the results of an assistive technology intervention that make use of communication robots (com‐robots). The intervention was designed to improve the social participation and interactions of nursing home residents. While our previous study showed that the overall effects of com‐robot intervention were positive, it was unknown what impact age, gender and the stage of dementia of participants had on such an intervention. Methods This was a non‐randomized, multicenter quasi‐experimental intervention study conducted in residential care homes in Japan. Two types of com‐robots were introduced for 8 weeks after baseline evaluation. The World Health Organization's ICF was used for evaluating any changes present after the 8‐week intervention. In total, 78 residents (68 women, 10 men, 86.5 ± 7.7 years old) participated in the study. The Degree of Daily Life Independence Score for People with Dementia (DDLIS‐PD) was employed for measuring the stage of dementia. Results The results showed that the older participants aged ≥80 benefited more from the intervention than the younger cohort did (P < 0.05). A greater improvement was shown among those with a more advanced stage of dementia than those at a less advanced stage (P < 0.05), when using DDLIS‐PD. Conclusions The overall findings support the use of com‐robots within the context of a care team for older people with moderate dementia, and those who are aged ≥80 years. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 373–378.

show abstract

Social Robots in Care Homes for Older Adults

Thunberg

Ziemke

2021

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a therapeutic companion robot for dementia symptoms in long-term care: reflections from a cluster-RCT

Abstract: The findings suggest that one approach does not fit all, and that there is considerable variation in responses to PARO. A number of recommendations are discussed to aid the delivery of psychosocial interventions with PARO in practice, as well as to guide future research.

Cited by 62 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

Measuring the impact of age, gender and dementia on communication‐robot interventions in residential care homes

Social Robots in Care Homes for Older Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About