Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32789476›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences2020

Robotic Pet Use Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Janella Hudson, Rachel Ungar, Laurie Albright, Rifky Tkatch, James Schaeffer, Ellen R Wicker

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06683443 (Assessing the Effects of Robotic Pets on Patients With Dementia in the Acute Care Hospital Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

NCT06683443 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Assessing the Effects of Robotic Pets on Patients With Dementia in the Acute Care Hospital Setting

TypeinterventionalSponsorSarasota Memorial Health Care SystemRan2024 to 2025Enrolled106ConditionsDementia, DeliriumArmsRobotic Joy for All™ pet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Evaluating Human-Robot Interactions to Support Healthy Aging-in-Place.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Janella HudsonResearch for Aging Populations, Optum, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rachel UngarResearch for Aging Populations, Optum, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Laurie AlbrightUnitedHealth Group, Medicare and Retirement, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Rifky TkatchResearch for Aging Populations, Optum, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
James SchaefferResearch for Aging Populations, Optum, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Ellen R WickerAARP Services, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Optum (United States) · USAARP · USUnitedHealth Group (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of robotic pets in alleviating loneliness for older adults.

methodSelf-reported lonely individuals with AARP Medicare Supplement plans insured by UnitedHealthcare who participated in a program with a robotic pet (n = 20) were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Participants were asked to provide feedback about their experiences interacting with a robotic pet, their perceptions about the potential impact on loneliness, and recommendations for improving the program. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants' responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Constant comparison and consensus-gaining processes were used to develop categories that later formed representative themes.

resultsSeven themes emerged from analysis: Openness to Adoption of Robotic Pet, Reactions to Pet and its Attributes, Integration of Pet in Daily Life, Strategic Utilization and Forging New Connections, Deriving Comfort and Camaraderie, Advice for Future Users, and Recommendations for Enhancing Ownership Experience. Participants living alone, with fewer social connections and less active lifestyles, derived the most benefit from interacting with their pets. Common responses to pets included cuddling, petting, grooming, and sleeping with them. Some shared or loaned their pets, while others refused to loan their pets to interested peers. Most reported showing their pets to others, which helped some facilitate communication and social connections.

conclusionRobotic pets may be an effective solution for alleviating loneliness in older adults, especially among those who live alone, have fewer social connections, and live less active lifestyles.

Indexed as

Object AttachmentRoboticsActivities of Daily LivingAgedAnimalsEfficiency, OrganizationalFemaleHumansIndependent LivingLonelinessMalePeer GroupPetsProgram DevelopmentQualitative ResearchSocial InteractionGerontologyOlder adultsRobotic petSocial roboticsSocial science and technology

Identifiers

PMID32789476
PMCPMC7566965
OpenAlexW3049500249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.