Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36756218›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

The ethics of pet robots in dementia care settings: Care professionals' and organisational leaders' ethical intuitions.

Wei Qi Koh, Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Chris Gastmans, Rose Miranda, Lieve Van den Block

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Wei Qi KohCollege of Nursing, Medicine, and Health Sciences, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Tijs VandemeulebrouckeSustainable AI Lab, Institut für Wissenschaft und Ethik, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Chris GastmansCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Rose MirandaEnd-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium.
Lieve Van den BlockEnd-of-Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and Ghent University, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pet robots are gaining momentum as a technology-based intervention to support the psychosocial wellbeing of people with dementia. Current research suggests that they can reduce agitation, improve mood and social engagement. The implementation of pet robots in care for persons with dementia raises several ethical debates. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence to uncover care providers' ethical intuitions, defined as individuals' fundamental moral knowledge that are not underpinned by any specific propositions. Objectives: Explore care professionals' and organisational leaders' ethical intuitions before and when implementing pet robots in nursing homes for routine dementia care. Materials and methods: We undertook a secondary qualitative analysis of data generated from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 22 care professionals and organisational leaders from eight nursing homes in Ireland. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Ethical constructs derived from a comprehensive review of argument-based ethics literature were used to guide the deductive coding of concepts. An inductive approach was used to generate open codes not falling within the pre-existing concepts. Findings: Ethical intuitions for implementing pet robots manifested at three levels: an (1) individual-relational, (2) organisational and (3) societal level. At the individual-relational level, ethical intuitions involved supporting the autonomy of residents and care providers, using the robots to alleviate residents' social isolation, and the physical and psychosocial impacts associated with their use. Some care providers had differing sentiments about anthropomorphizing pet robots. At the organisational level, intuitions related to the use of pet robots to relieve care provision, changes to the organisational workflow, and varying extents of openness amongst care providers to use technological innovations. At the societal level, intuitions pertained conceptions of dementia care in nursing homes, and social justice relating to the affordability and availability of pet robots. Discrepancies between participants' ethical intuitions and existing philosophical arguments were uncovered. Conclusion: Care professionals and organisational leaders had different opinions on how pet robots are or should be implemented for residents with dementia. Future research should consider involving care practitioners, people with dementia, and their family members in the ethics dialogue to support the sustainable, ethical use of pet robots in practice.

Indexed as

dementiaethicsethics of agingimplementationlong-term carenursing homespet robotssocial robots

Identifiers

PMID36756218
PMCPMC9899814

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.