Cargando…

How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

BACKGROUND: Robopets are small animal‐like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. OBJECTIVE: To bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐bei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abbott, Rebecca, Orr, Noreen, McGill, Paige, Whear, Rebecca, Bethel, Alison, Garside, Ruth, Stein, Ken, Thompson‐Coon, Jo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31070870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239
_version_ 1783454789521113088
author Abbott, Rebecca
Orr, Noreen
McGill, Paige
Whear, Rebecca
Bethel, Alison
Garside, Ruth
Stein, Ken
Thompson‐Coon, Jo
author_facet Abbott, Rebecca
Orr, Noreen
McGill, Paige
Whear, Rebecca
Bethel, Alison
Garside, Ruth
Stein, Ken
Thompson‐Coon, Jo
author_sort Abbott, Rebecca
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Robopets are small animal‐like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. OBJECTIVE: To bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of older people living in care homes. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. DATA SOURCES: We searched 13 electronic databases from inception to July 2018 and undertook forward and backward citation chasing. METHODS: Eligible studies reported the views and experiences of robopets from residents, family members and staff (qualitative studies using recognised methods of qualitative data collection and analysis) and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of care home residents (randomised controlled trials, randomised crossover trials and cluster randomised trials). Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. We used the Wallace criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the evidence. We developed a logic model with stakeholders and used this as a framework to guide data extraction and synthesis. Where appropriate, we used meta‐analysis to combine effect estimates from quantitative studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (10 qualitative, 2 mixed methods and 7 randomised trials) met the inclusion criteria. Interactions with robopets were described as having a positive impact on aspects of well‐being including loneliness, depression and quality of life by residents and staff, although there was no corresponding statistically significant evidence from meta‐analysis for these outcomes. Meta‐analysis showed evidence of a reduction in agitation with the robopet “Paro” compared to control (−0.32 [95% CI −0.61 to −0.04, p = 0.03]). Not everyone had a positive experience of robopets. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with robopets appears to have beneficial effects on the health and well‐being of older adults living in care homes, but not all chose to engage. Whether the benefits can be sustained are yet to be investigated. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Robopets have the potential to benefit people living in care homes, through increasing engagement and interaction. With the robopet acting as a catalyst, this engagement and interaction may afford comfort and help reduce agitation and loneliness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6766882
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67668822019-10-01 How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence Abbott, Rebecca Orr, Noreen McGill, Paige Whear, Rebecca Bethel, Alison Garside, Ruth Stein, Ken Thompson‐Coon, Jo Int J Older People Nurs Original Articles BACKGROUND: Robopets are small animal‐like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. OBJECTIVE: To bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of older people living in care homes. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. DATA SOURCES: We searched 13 electronic databases from inception to July 2018 and undertook forward and backward citation chasing. METHODS: Eligible studies reported the views and experiences of robopets from residents, family members and staff (qualitative studies using recognised methods of qualitative data collection and analysis) and the effects of robopets on the health and well‐being of care home residents (randomised controlled trials, randomised crossover trials and cluster randomised trials). Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. We used the Wallace criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the evidence. We developed a logic model with stakeholders and used this as a framework to guide data extraction and synthesis. Where appropriate, we used meta‐analysis to combine effect estimates from quantitative studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (10 qualitative, 2 mixed methods and 7 randomised trials) met the inclusion criteria. Interactions with robopets were described as having a positive impact on aspects of well‐being including loneliness, depression and quality of life by residents and staff, although there was no corresponding statistically significant evidence from meta‐analysis for these outcomes. Meta‐analysis showed evidence of a reduction in agitation with the robopet “Paro” compared to control (−0.32 [95% CI −0.61 to −0.04, p = 0.03]). Not everyone had a positive experience of robopets. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with robopets appears to have beneficial effects on the health and well‐being of older adults living in care homes, but not all chose to engage. Whether the benefits can be sustained are yet to be investigated. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Robopets have the potential to benefit people living in care homes, through increasing engagement and interaction. With the robopet acting as a catalyst, this engagement and interaction may afford comfort and help reduce agitation and loneliness. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-05-09 2019-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6766882/ /pubmed/31070870 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239 Text en © 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Older People Nursing Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Abbott, Rebecca
Orr, Noreen
McGill, Paige
Whear, Rebecca
Bethel, Alison
Garside, Ruth
Stein, Ken
Thompson‐Coon, Jo
How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title_full How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title_fullStr How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title_full_unstemmed How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title_short How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
title_sort how do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6766882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31070870
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239
work_keys_str_mv AT abbottrebecca howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT orrnoreen howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT mcgillpaige howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT whearrebecca howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT bethelalison howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT garsideruth howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT steinken howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence
AT thompsoncoonjo howdorobopetsimpactthehealthandwellbeingofresidentsincarehomesasystematicreviewofqualitativeandquantitativeevidence