Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35916689›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2022

Use of a Social Robot (LOVOT) for Persons With Dementia: Exploratory Study.

Birthe Dinesen, Helle Kidde Hansen, Gry Bruun Grønborg, Anne-Kirstine Dyrvig, Sofie Dalskov Leisted, Henrik Stenstrup, Cathrine Skov Schacksen, Claus Oestergaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. "It's always happy to see me": Exploring LOVOT robots as companions for older adults.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Birthe DinesenLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5893-9676
Helle Kidde HansenLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9537-3499
Gry Bruun GrønborgLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6613-3429
Anne-Kirstine DyrvigThe Danish Clinical Quality Program, National Clinical Registries, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9954-1699
Sofie Dalskov LeistedLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1266-7799
Henrik StenstrupThe Innovation Department for the Elderly, Aalborg Municipality, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6453-2773
Cathrine Skov SchacksenLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-2909
Claus OestergaardLaboratory for Welfare Technologies - Digital Health & Rehabilitation, Sports Sciences - Performance and Technology, Department for Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6771-4089

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 50 million people worldwide are living with dementia. Social robots have been developed and tested to determine whether they improve the quality of life for persons with dementia. A new mobile social robot called LOVOT has artificial intelligence and sensor technologies built in. LOVOT, which is manufactured in Japan, has not yet been tested for use by persons with dementia.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore how the social robot LOVOT interacts with persons with dementia and how health care professionals experience working with LOVOT in their interaction with persons with dementia.

methodsThe study was carried out at 3 nursing homes in Denmark, all with specialized units for persons with dementia. The interaction between the persons with dementia and LOVOT was tested in both individual sessions for 4 weeks and group sessions for 12 weeks. A total of 42 persons were included in the study, of which 12 were allocated to the individual sessions. A triangulation of data collection techniques was used: the World Health Organization-5 questionnaire, face scale, participant observation, and semistructured focus group interviews with health care professionals (n=3).

resultsThere were no clinically significant changes in the well-being of the persons with dementia followed in the individual or group interaction sessions over time. The results from the face scale showed that in both the individual and group sessions, persons with dementia tended to express more positive facial expressions after the sessions. Findings on how persons with dementia experienced their interaction with LOVOT can be stated in terms of the following themes: LOVOT opens up communication and interaction; provides entertainment; creates a breathing space; is accepted and creates joy; induces feelings of care; can create an overstimulation of feelings; is not accepted; is perceived as an animal; is perceived as being nondemanding; and prevents touch deprivation. Findings regarding the health care professionals' experiences using LOVOT were as follows: the artificial behavior seems natural; and it is a communication tool that can stimulate, create feelings of security, and open up communication. Our findings indicate that the social robot is a tool that can be used in interactions with persons with dementia.

conclusionsThe LOVOT robot is the next generation of social robots with advanced artificial intelligence. The vast majority of persons with dementia accepted the social robot LOVOT. LOVOT had positive effects, opened up communication, and facilitated interpersonal interaction. Although LOVOT did not create noticeable effects on social well-being, it gave individual persons a respite from everyday life. Some residents were overstimulated by emotions after interacting with LOVOT. Health care professionals accepted the social robot and view LOVOT as a new tool in the work with persons with dementia.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedementiahealth carehealth care professionalspersons with dementiasocial robots

Identifiers

PMID35916689
PMCPMC9379791

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.