ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Developing an implementation guide for robotic pets in continuing care settings for older adults living with dementia in Canada: findings from a modified Delphi.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile live animal therapy has been demonstrated to improve the well-being of persons living with dementia, no-pet policies frequently exclude live pets in continuing care settings due to the potential for biting, scratching, and allergies to occur. Robotic pets as an alternative tool for supporting the well-being of persons living with dementia in continuing care is increasing in prevalence due to its therapeutic value. While there are benefits to using robotic pets, implementation challenges and unintended consequences exist. An evidence-based implementation guide is needed to support care providers implementing robotic pets in continuing care to maximize the therapeutic benefits while mitigating implementation challenges.
methodsA RAND/UCLA Modified Delphi method (a consensus-building approach) was used to inform guide development. To develop the Delphi questionnaire, we conducted a scoping review and ethnographic participant observations to identify potential barriers and facilitators to implementing robotic pets in continuing care for persons living with dementia. We then asked Canadian care providers (researchers, healthcare providers, and family and friend caregivers) to complete a two-round Delphi questionnaire, with round 1 feedback from participants integrated into round 2.
resultsIn round 1, 12 participants reviewed 143 statements on a 7-point Likert scale of agreement. In round 2, 8 participants reviewed 52 revised statements based on feedback from round 1. In total, 135 statements reached consensus for inclusion, and 8 reached consensus for exclusion. The included statements reflected the importance of allowing residents to lead interactions with robotic pets and having resources to support purchasing and maintaining robotic pets. The included statements were used to create two implementation guides, one for health care providers, and one for organizational leaders.
conclusionThe implementation guides reflecting statements that were agreed upon for inclusion by Delphi participants will support care providers implementing robotic pets in continuing care. An evidence-based approach to implementing robotic pets within continuing care will help improve the mental well-being and quality of life of persons living with dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.