Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34723825›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2021

User-Centered Design of Companion Robot Pets Involving Care Home Resident-Robot Interactions and Focus Groups With Residents, Staff, and Family: Qualitative Study.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Hannah Louise BradwellCentre for Health Technology, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-1069
Katie EdwardsCentre for Health Technology, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6212-6010
Deborah ShentonFaculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-6058
Rhona WinningtonAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6504-2856
Serge ThillDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1177-4119
Ray B JonesCentre for Health Technology, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-3421

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, pressure is increasing on health and social care resources due to the aging population and growing prevalence of dementia. Companion robots, such as Paro, demonstrate strong potential for helping reduce this pressure through reported benefits including reduced agitation, depression, loneliness, care provider burden, and medication use. However, we previously identified that user-centered design of robot pets is both essential and understudied. We observed that commonly used robot pets are poorly matched to end-user requirements, and that end users and developers of robot pets differ significantly in their perception of appropriate design. This may explain some of the contradictory outcome research and variance in results for robot pets, such as Paro.

objectiveIn response to the literature gap, we aimed to provide user-centered insights into the design of robot pets from key stakeholders to inform future robot development and the choice of robots for real-world implementation and research. We focused on understanding user requirements.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study with 65 participants from 5 care homes (26 care home residents, 29 staff members. and 10 family members). Care home residents formed groups of between 3 and 4 individuals and experienced free interactions with a range of 8 companion robots and toys, including Paro and more affordable alternatives. The robots provided had a range of esthetics, shell types, interactivity levels, and designs for comparison. Care staff and family members observed the interactions. All participants then engaged in focus groups within their stakeholder category to discuss preferences and user requirements in companion robot design. Both free interactions and focus groups were video and audio recorded, transcribed, and subjected to thematic analysis.

resultsCare home residents, family members, and staff were open and accepting of the use of companion robot pets, with the majority suggesting that they would keep a device for themselves or the residents. The most preferred device was the Joy for All cat, followed by the Joy for All dog. In discussions, the preferred design features included familiar animal embodiment (domestic pet), soft fur, interactivity, big appealing eyes, simulated breathing, and movements. Unfamiliar devices were more often seen as toy-like and suitable for children, producing some negative responses.

conclusionsThis work provides important and user-centered insights into future robot designs for care home residents by means of a comprehensive comparison with key stakeholders. This work strongly supports the use of familiar embodiment in future robot pet designs, with domestic cat and dog morphologies appearing most acceptable. The results have implications for future robot designs and the selection of robot pets for both research and real-world implementations.

Indexed as

acceptabilitycare homescompanion robotsdementiaengagementgerontologyJoy for Allolder adultsParosocial caresocial robotsuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID34723825
PMCPMC8593804

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.