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
Review
. 2025 May 7.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.19510. Online ahead of print.

Implementing Robotic Pets in Continuing Care Settings: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators

Brooklynn E Fernandes  1 , Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc  2 , Justin Z Eng  3 , Marie Charbonneau  4 , Bonnie M Lashewicz  1 , Ann M Toohey  1
Affiliations
Review

Implementing Robotic Pets in Continuing Care Settings: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators

Brooklynn E Fernandes et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. .

Abstract

Background: Robotic pets are a unique technological innovation found among facility-based continuing care (CC) settings for older adults living with or without dementia. While researchers have reported positive outcomes for older adults who interact with robotic pets, unintended negative consequences may occur if robotic pets are not implemented properly. We examine the current evidence describing barriers and facilitators of implementing robotic pets for older adults residing in CC facilities to inform implementation practices.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. Five databases and the CADTH Gray Matters tool were used to identify relevant articles and gray literature. Our inclusion criteria followed the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) framework: Population: older adults living with or without dementia; Concept: barriers and facilitators to implementing robotic pets to older adults; Context: CC facilities. Two reviewers independently screened all titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and extracted the data. Two reviewers also organized barriers and facilitators into the theoretical domains framework (TDF) domains, which map onto the capability, opportunity, and motivation behavioral Change Wheel (COM-B).

Results: We identified 518 unique articles from our database and gray literature search, 42 of which met our inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified across all 14 domains of the TDF and all six components of the COM-B. Domains mentioned in ≥ 50% of the articles include environmental context and resources, beliefs about consequences, and social influences. Common facilitators include knowledge of the benefits of robotic pets and how to use robotic pets, while common barriers include concerns over infantilization and hygiene.

Conclusions: Our findings will help inform care providers of the barriers and facilitators to implementing robotic pets within CC settings with the goal of improving the quality of life of older adults.

Keywords: caregivers; dementia; residential continuing care; robotic pets; therapeutic intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. A. M. Toohey, J. A. Hewson, C. L. Adams, and M. J. Rock, “Pets, Social Participation, and Aging‐In‐Place: Findings From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging,” Canadian Journal on Aging/Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement 37, no. 2 (2018): 200–217, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980818000107.
    1. N. R. Gee, M. K. Mueller, and A. L. Curl, “Human‐Animal Interaction and Older Adults: An Overview,” Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017): 1416, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01416.
    1. M. J. Enders‐Slegers and K. Hediger, “Pet Ownership and Human–Animal Interaction in an Aging Population: Rewards and Challenges,” Anthrozoös 32, no. 2 (2019): 255–265, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2019.1569907.
    1. S. Petersen, S. Houston, H. Qin, C. Tague, and J. Studley, “The Utilization of Robotic Pets in Dementia Care,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 55, no. 2 (2016): 569–574, https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD‐160703.
    1. M. Fox and M. Ray, “No Pets Allowed? Companion Animals, Older People and Residential Care,” Medical Humanities 45, no. 2 (2019): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum‐2019‐011651.

LinkOut - more resources