Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35830959›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2022

Implementing Affordable Socially Assistive Pet Robots in Care Homes Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stratified Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial and Mixed Methods Study.

Hannah Bradwell, Katie J Edwards, Rhona Winnington, Serge Thill, Victoria Allgar, Ray B Jones

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04168463 (Exploring Use of Companion Robot Pets for Older Adults in Care Homes, an 8-month Stepped-wedge, Cluster Randomised Control Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT04168463 nacompletednot on this map

Exploring Use of Companion Robot Pets for Older Adults in Care Homes, an 8-month Stepped-wedge, Cluster Randomised Control Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PlymouthRan2020 to 2021Enrolled83ConditionsAging, Dementia, Neuropsychiatric Symptoms, WellbeingArmsTwo Joy for All robots (one cat and one dog)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Artificial Intelligence and Assistive Robotics in Healthcare Services: Applications in Silver Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  8. Personalized Cognitive Support via Social Robots.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Hannah BradwellCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-1069
Katie J EdwardsCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6212-6010
Rhona WinningtonSchool of Clinical Sciences, Auckland 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
Victoria AllgarCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5228-2623
Ray B JonesCentre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-3421
University of Plymouth · GBAuckland University of Technology · NZRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot pets may assist in the challenges of supporting an aging population with growing dementia prevalence. Prior work has focused on the impacts of the robot seal Paro on older adult well-being, but recent studies have suggested the good acceptability and implementation feasibility of more affordable devices (Joy for All [JfA] cats and dogs).

objectiveWe aimed to address the limited effectiveness research on JfA devices.

methodsWe conducted an 8-month, stratified, cluster randomized controlled trial in 8 care homes in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Over 4 months, 4 care homes each received 2 JfA devices (1 cat and 1 dog; intervention group), and 4 homes received care as usual (control group). Psychometrics were collected before and after the intervention to compare the change from baseline to follow-up between the groups. In the final 4 months, all 8 care homes received devices, but only qualitative data were collected owing to COVID-19 and reduced capacity. The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI] Nursing Home version). Care provider burden was a secondary outcome (occupational disruptiveness NPI subscale), alongside the Challenging Behavior scale, the Holden communication scale, the Campaign to End Loneliness questionnaire, and medication use. Qualitative data were collected through care staff observation calendars and end-of-study interviews to understand use, experience, and impact. We also collected demographic data and assessed dementia severity. In total, 253 residents had robot interaction opportunities, and 83 were consented for direct data collection.

resultsThere was a significant difference in the total change from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups for NPI (P<.001) and occupational disruptiveness (P=.03). Neuropsychiatric symptoms increased in the control group and decreased in the intervention group. No significant difference was seen for communication issues or challenging behavior. For NPI subdomains, there were significant differences from baseline to follow-up in delusions (P=.03), depression (P=.01), anxiety (P=.001), elation (P=.02), and apathy (P=.009), all of which decreased in the intervention group and increased slightly in the control group. The summative impact results suggested that most residents (46/54, 85%) who interacted with robots experienced a positive impact. Those who interacted had significantly higher dementia severity scores (P=.001). The qualitative results suggested good adoption, acceptability, and suitability for subjectively lonely individuals and lack of a novelty effect through sustained use, and demonstrated that the reasons for use were entertainment, anxiety, and agitation.

conclusionsAffordable robot pets hold potential for improving the well-being of care home residents and people with dementia, including reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms and occupational disruptiveness. This work suggests no novelty effect and contributes toward understanding robot pet suitability. Moreover, interactions were more common among residents with more moderate/severe dementia and those subjectively lonely.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04168463; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04168463.

Indexed as

companion robotsCOVID-19dementiaolder adultsrobot petssocial robotswell-being

Identifiers

PMID35830959
PMCPMC9407160
OpenAlexW4284893817

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.