Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31070870›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of older people nursing2019

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

Rebecca Abbott, Noreen Orr, Paige McGill, Rebecca Whear, Alison Bethel, Ruth Garside, Ken Stein, Jo Thompson-Coon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of older people nursing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effectiveness of Group Interventions With Socially-Assistive Robots for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rebecca AbbottEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4165-4484
Noreen OrrEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Paige McGillCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Rebecca WhearEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Alison BethelEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Ken SteinEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Jo Thompson-CoonEvidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula(NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobopets are small animal-like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets.

objectiveTo 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.

designSystematic 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.

methodsEligible 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.

resultsNineteen 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.

conclusionsEngagement 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.

Indexed as

Health StatusHomes for the AgedMental HealthRoboticsAgedAged, 80 and overAnimalsHumansPetsQuality of LifeCompanion animalsdementialong-term careolder adultsrobopetssocial robotssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31070870
PMCPMC6766882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.