Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31558461›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Companion robots for older people: importance of user-centred design demonstrated through observations and focus groups comparing preferences of older people and roboticists in South West England.

Hannah Louise Bradwell, Katie Jane Edwards, Rhona Winnington, Serge Thill, Ray B Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of a Robot Pet Companion on the Mood of Older Adults Receiving Family Caregiver Support: Pilot RCT.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2026
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Hannah Louise BradwellFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK hannah.bradwell@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9103-1069
Katie Jane EdwardsFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6212-6010
Rhona WinningtonDepartment of Nursing, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-6504-2856
Serge ThillDonders Centre for Cognition, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1177-4119
Ray B JonesFaculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2963-3421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCompanion robots, such as Paro, may reduce agitation and depression for older people with dementia. However, contradictory research outcomes suggest robot design is not always optimal. While many researchers suggest user-centred design is important, there is little evidence on the difference this might make. Here, we aimed to assess its importance by comparing companion robot design perceptions between older people (end users) and roboticists (developers).

designOlder people and roboticists interacted with eight companion robots or alternatives at two separate events in groups of two to four people. Interactions were recorded, participants' comments and observations were transcribed, and content was analysed. Subsequently, each group participated in focus groups on perceptions of companion robot design. Discussions were recorded and transcribed, and content was analysed. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Seventeen older people (5 male, 12 female, ages 60-99) at a supported living retirement complex, and 18 roboticists (10 male, 8 female, ages 24-37) at a research centre away-day.

resultsWe found significant differences in design preferences between older people and roboticists. Older people desired soft, furry, interactive animals that were familiar and realistic, while unfamiliar forms were perceived as infantilising. By contrast, most roboticists eschewed familiar and realistic designs, thinking unfamiliar forms better suited older people. Older people also expressed desire for features not seen as important by developers. A large difference was seen in attitude towards ability to talk: 12/17 (71%) older people but only 2/18 (11%) roboticists requested speech. Older people responded positively towards life-simulation features, eye contact, robot personalisation and obeying commands, features undervalued by roboticists. These differences were reflected in preferred device, with 'Joy for All' cat chosen most often by older people, while roboticists most often chose Paro.

conclusionThe observed misalignment of opinion between end users and developers on desirable design features of companion robots demonstrates the need for user-centred design during development.

Indexed as

AttitudeDementiaEngineeringFriendsPatient PreferenceRoboticsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSpeechbiotechnology & bioinformaticsdementiageriatric medicinehealth informaticspublic health

Identifiers

PMID31558461
PMCPMC6773331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.