CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 151

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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·2019·International Journal of Older People Nursing
DOI 10.1111/opn.12239PMC PMC6766882
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/opn.12239

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Robotic pet interventions have been proposed as safer alternatives to traditional animal-assisted interventions.

    “In response to these limitations, robotic pet interventions have been proposed as safer alternatives [14].”

    From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Abbott et al. included quantitative studies that were generally small, short-term, and often at unclear or high risk of bias; blinding was difficult; outcome measures may not have fully captured benefits; long-term evidence was limited; and publication bias was not clearly assessed.

    “Abbott et al. [14] included quantitative studies that were generally small, shortterm, and often at unclear or high risk of bias; blinding was difficult, outcome measures may not have fully captured benefits, long-term evidence was limited, and publication bias was not clearly assessed.”

    From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Some studies found no clinically significant improvement in overall well-being, quality of life, sleep, anxiety, or depression, despite positive short-term effects on mood or engagement.

    “Some studies found no clinically significant improvement in overall well-being, quality of life, sleep, anxiety, or depression, despite positive short-term effects on mood or engagement [14,28,35].”

    From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Evidence on robopets and socially assistive robots shows consistent reductions in agitation and improvements in interaction and emotional expression, broadly aligning with reviews that point to shared mechanisms with AAI, including social connection, meaningful activity, and positive effect.

    “Evidence on robopets and socially assistive robots shows consistent reductions in agitation and improvements in interaction and emotional expression, broadly aligning with reviews that point to shared mechanisms with AAI, including social connection, meaningful activity, and positive effect [14,28,35,50].”

    From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

  • In dementia care, robotic pets were associated with reduced agitation, increased comfort, improved interaction, and greater engagement, although effects on depression, anxiety, quality of life, and long-term well-being were inconsistent.

    “In dementia care, robotic pets were associated with reduced agitation, increased comfort, improved interaction, and greater engagement, although effects on depression, anxiety, quality of life, and long-term well-being were inconsistent [14,25,26,28,29,35,38,47].”

    From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. 10.1016/j.arr.2013.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1080/10888691.2016.1262263 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.jamda.2010.10.002 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.05.007 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.apnr.2015.07.003 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.12.014 · DOI
  8. 10.1155/2016/8569602 · DOI
  9. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003642 · DOI
  10. Chang W. L. &Sabanovic S.(2015).Interaction expands function: Social shaping of the therapeutic robot PARO in a nursing home. In Proceedings of the 2015 Acm/Ieee International Conference on Human‐Robot Interaction (pp. 343‐350). New York NY: Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI
  11. Chang W. L. Sabanovic S. &Huber L.(2013).Use of seal‐like robot PARO in sensory group therapy for older adults with dementia. In Proceedings of the 8th Acm/Ieee International Conference on Human‐Robot Interaction (pp. 101‐+). New York NY: Ieee · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2010.00176.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1080/14635240.2001.10806140 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/S1041610206003322 · DOI
  16. Giusti L. &Marti P.(2006).Interpretative dynamics in human robot interaction. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on. · DOI
  17. Gustafsson C., 2016, A Robotic cat in dementia care: A pilot study, Gerontechnology, 15, 151
  18. 10.1136/bmj.d5928 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Higgins J. P. T. &Green S.(2011).Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. In A. f. http://handbook.cochrane.org. (Ed.). Retrieved fromhttp://handbook.cochrane.org
  20. Iacono I. &Marti P.(2016).Narratives and emotions in seniors affected by dementia: A comparative study using a robot and a toy. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO‐MAN) 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on. · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.02.014 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.06.019 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/jan.13076 · DOI
  24. 10.3389/fict.2017.00016 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/10447318.2013.873278 · DOI
  26. 10.1177/153331750401900209 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.10.008 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.10.015 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1080/13607863.2016.1262820 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/geront/gnx180 · DOI
  31. 10.3928/00989134-20130313-03 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1080/13607863.2017.1421617 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.01.007 · DOI
  34. 10.1007/s12369-015-0326-7 · DOI
  35. Niemelä M. Määttä H. &Ylikauppila M.(2016).Expectations and experiences of adopting robots in elderly care in Finland: perspectives of caregivers and decision-makers. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Serviceology ICServ2016 Society for Serviciology.
  36. 10.1016/S0022-3999(00)00183-5 · DOI
  37. 10.3233/JAD-160703 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1007/s12369-015-0284-0 · DOI
  39. 10.1136/medethics-2016-103603 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/geront/gny046 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1002/jrsm.1254 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.01.013 · DOI
  43. 10.3310/hta19450 · DOI
  44. 10.1177/153331750301800610 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1111/ajag.12199 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.012 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1111/psyg.12159 · DOI
  49. 10.1080/08927936.2015.1089011 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.06.012 · DOI
  51. 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00133 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.2217/ahe.12.65 · DOI
  53. 10.1080/17437199.2010.534965 · DOI
  54. 10.1332/0305573042009444 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.05.013 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Abbott, R., Orr, N., McGill, P., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Garside, R., Stein, K., & Thompson‐Coon, J.
Affiliations
  • Evidence Synthesis Team, NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health University of Exeter Exeter UK
  • College of Medicine and Health University of Exeter Exeter UK
  • European Centre for Environment and Human Health University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter Exeter UK
ORCID
Abbott, Rebecca
Venue
International Journal of Older People Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-09
Volume
14
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1748-3735
  • 1748-3743
DOI
10.1111/opn.12239
PMC
PMC6766882
Cited by
151
References
10
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
National Institute on Handicapped Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review