Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Sep;14(3):e12239.
doi: 10.1111/opn.12239. Epub 2019 May 9.

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

Rebecca Abbott  1 , Noreen Orr  1 , Paige McGill  2 , Rebecca Whear  1 , Alison Bethel  1 , Ruth Garside  3 , Ken Stein  1 , Jo Thompson-Coon  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Rebecca Abbott et al. Int J Older People Nurs. 2019 Sep.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Companion animals; dementia; long-term care; older adults; robopets; social robots; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The (a) Initial logic model. (b) Logic model iteration after qualitative data extraction. (c) Final logic model incorporating quantitative findings (highlighted by thick borders) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA flow diagram showing inclusion of articles [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Meta‐analyses showing effect of robopets compared to control activity/usual care on (a) loneliness, (b) agitation, (c) depression and d) quality of life [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abbott, R. A. , Whear, R. , Thompson‐Coon, J. , Ukoumunne, O. C. , Rogers, M. , Bethel, A. , … Stein, K. (2013). Effectiveness of mealtime interventions on nutritional outcomes for the elderly living in residential care: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 12(4), 967–981. 10.1016/j.arr.2013.06.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson, L. M. , Petticrew, M. , Rehfuess, E. , Armstrong, R. , Ueffing, E. , Baker, P. , … Tugwell, P. (2011). Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(1), 33–42. 10.1002/jrsm.32 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Banks, M. R. , Willoughby, L. M. , & Banks, W. A. (2008). Animal‐assisted therapy and loneliness in nursing homes: Use of robotic versus living dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9(3), 173–177. 10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beetz, A. M. (2017). Theories and possible processes of action in animal assisted interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 21(2), 139–149. 10.1080/10888691.2016.1262263 - DOI
    1. Bemelmans, R. , Gelderblom, G. J. , Jonker, P. , & De Witte, L. (2012). Socially assistive robots in elderly care: A systematic review into effects and effectiveness. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(2), 114–120e1. 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002 - DOI - PubMed