Table 2 Quantitative results of studies showing the important results and conclusions with different AI tools
Study | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
Banks et al (2008) [13], USA | “In comparison with a control group not receiving animal assisted therapy (AAT), both the Dog and AIBO groups had statistically significant improvements in their levels of loneliness. As measured by a modified Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (MLAPS), residents showed high levels of attachment to both the dog and AIBO. Subscale analysis showed that the AIBO group scored lower than the living dog on animal rights/animal welfare but not on general attachment or people substituting.” | “Interactive robotic dogs can reduce loneliness in residents of LTCF and that residents become attached to these robots. However, level of attachment does not explain the decrease in loneliness associated with AAT conducted with either a living or robotic dog.” |
Broadbent et al (2016) [14] , New Zealand | “There were no significant differences between groups in resident or staff outcomes, except a significant increase in job satisfaction in the control group only. The intervention group perceived the robots had more agency and experience than the control group did. Perceived agency of the robots decreased over time in both groups. Overall, we received very mixed responses with positive, neutral and negative comments.” | “The robots had no major benefits or problems. Future research could give robots stronger operational roles, use more specific outcome measures, and perform cost-benefit analyses.” |
Cohen et al (2016) [15], Switzerland | “Both older adults and their informal caregivers considered the performance and usefulness of the IWSS intervention to be low to moderate. A majority of the participants were unsatisfied with its ease of use and found multiple obstacles in using and having an intention to use the IWSS. However, their informal caregivers were more satisfied with the program and gave higher scores for usefulness, ease of use, and intention to use IWSS technology.” | “The IWSS displayed low-to-moderate acceptability among the older participants and their informal caregivers. Authors recommend improving and clarifying several components in the IWSS for the development of a design that is user-centered.” |
“Statistically significant differences in changes were found on agitation and depression between groups from T0 to T2. Although the symptoms of the intervention group declined, the control group's symptoms developed in the opposite direction. Agitation showed an effect estimate of -5.51, CI 0.06-10.97, P = .048, and depression -3.88, CI 0.43-7.33, P = .028. There were no significant differences in changes on either agitation or depression between groups from T0 to T1.” | “This study found a long-term effect on depression and agitation by using Paro in activity groups for elderly with dementia in nursing homes. Paro might be a suitable nonpharmacological treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms and should be considered as a useful tool in clinical practice.” | |
Liang et al (2017) [18], New Zealand | “Observations showed that Paro significantly improved facial expressions (affect) and communication with staff (social interaction) at the day care centers. Subanalyses showed that care recipients with less cognitive impairment responded significantly better to Paro. There were no significant differences in care recipient dementia symptoms, nor physiological measures between the intervention and control group.” | “Paro shows promise in enhancing affective and social outcomes for certain individuals with dementia in a community context. Larger randomized controlled trials in community settings, with longer time frames, are needed to further specify the contexts and characteristics for which Paro is most beneficial.” |
Libin et al (2004) [19], USA | “Though not identical, similar trends were seen for the two cats.” | “Interacting with the cats was linked with decreased agitation and increased pleasure and interest. The study is intended to pave the way for future research on robotherapy with nursing home residents” |
Moyle et al (2013) [20], Australia | “PARO had a moderate to large positive influence on participants' quality of life compared to the reading group. The PARO intervention group had higher pleasure scores when compared to the reading group.” | “Findings suggest PARO may be useful as a treatment option for people with dementia; however, the need for a larger trial was identified” |
Pu et al (2020) [23], Australia | “Participants in the PARO group had a significantly lowered level of observed pain [−0.514, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.774 to −0.254, P < .001] and used fewer pro re nata medications (−1.175, 95% CI −2.205 to −0.145, P = .025) than those in usual care after controlling for age, sex, cognitive function and medications. There were no significant differences in staff-rated pain, agitation, anxiety, and depression, nor regularly scheduled medications between intervention and control group.” | “PARO shows promise in reducing pain and medications for individuals with dementia and chronic pain in long-term care facilities. This intervention might be incorporated into daily practice as an alternative to manage pain in people with dementia. Larger randomized controlled trials with longer time frames are needed to identify further and test the use of PARO in long-term care settings.” |
Rantz et al (2017) [24], USA | “The randomized comparison group functionally declined more rapidly than the intervention group. Walking speed and several measures from GaitRite, velocity, step length left and right, stride length left and right, and the fall risk measure of functional ambulation profile (FAP) all had clinically significant changes. The walking speed increase (worse) and velocity decline (worse) of 0.073 m/s for comparison group exceeded 0.05 m/s, a value considered to be a minimum clinically important difference. No differences were measured in health care costs.” | “These findings demonstrate that sensor data with health alerts and fall alerts sent to AL nursing staff can be an effective strategy to detect and intervene in early signs of illness or functional decline.” |
Rantz et al (2012) [25], USA | “Intervention participants showed significant improvements (as compared with the control group) for the Short Physical Performance Battery gait speed score at Quarter 3 (p = 0.03), hand grip-left at Quarter 2 (p = 0.02), hand grip-right at Quarter 4 (p = 0.05), and the GAITRite functional ambulation profile score at Quarter 2 (p = 0.05).” | “Technological methods such as these could be widely adopted in older adult housing, long-term care settings, and in private homes where older adults wish to remain independent for as long as possible.” |
Robinson et al (2013) [26], New Zealand | “In comparison with the control group, residents who interacted with the robot had significant decreases in loneliness over the period of the trial. Both the resident dog and the seal robot made an impact on the social environment in comparison to when neither was present. Residents talked to and touched the robot significantly more than the resident dog. A greater number of residents were involved in discussion about the robot in comparison with the resident dog and conversation about the robot occurred more.” | “Paro is a positive addition to this environment and has benefits for older people in nursing home care. Paro may be able to address some of the unmet needs of older people that a resident animal may not, particularly relating to loneliness.” |
Thodberg et al (2016) [27] , Denmark | “The immediate responses to, and interaction with, the visiting animal depended on the type of animal that was brought along. The dog and the interactive robot seal triggered the most interaction, in the form of physical contact (F(2,103) = 7.50, p < 0.001), eye contact (F(4,151) = 6.26, p < 0.001), and verbal communication (F(4,195) = 2.87, p < 0.05). As well, the cognitive impairment level of the residents affected with whom they interacted. The higher the cognitive impairment level, the more interaction was directed toward the animal and less toward humans, regardless of visit type (F(2,101) = 4.10, p < 0.05).” | “The dogs and the robot seal stimulated the residents to more in- teraction, compared with the toy cat, but the robot seal failed to maintain the attention at the same level over time.” |
Koh et al (2018) [35], South Korea | “There were statistically significant differences in positive emotions and problem behaviors between the groups. The experimental group demonstrated a significant improvement in social interaction.” | “PARO intervention can be utilized as an effective nursing intervention to increase positive emotions and social interaction, as well as decrease problem be haviors, in elderly people with dementia living in nursing home facilities.” |
Lane et al (2016) [36], USA | “It was found that use of Paro, a social robot, resulted in increased observed positive affective and behavioral indicators, with concomitant decreases observed in negative affective and behavioral indicators.” | “Paro is likely an effective nonpharmacological approach for managing dementia-related mood and behavior problems with veterans in VA long term care facilities. They additionally observed that Paro is best presented to residents who are relatively calm and approachable, as opposed to actively exhibiting behavior or mood problems” |
Obayashi et al (2020) [40], Japan | “Care workers devoted 3 h to the maintenance of records during their most stressful periods. Automatic recording of vital information using robot sensors can improve the quality of nursing care work. Care workers' stress levels were maximized when responding to nurse calls. Temporary responses to nurse calls by the robots may help to effectively reduce the burden on nursing care workers. Robots can stimulate elderly people to communicate more with others (P < 0.05).” | “Appropriate vocalization by communicative robots may prevent the deterioration of quality of life in elderly individuals.” “Communicative robots, used with a sensing system, may stimulate elderly people to activate a communication link with others and help care workers to effectively reduce the burden during the night shift. A follow-up study involving a broader research program on communicative robots and elderly care would be beneficial.” |
Robinson et al (2015) [42], New Zealand | “The final analysis found that systolic and diastolic blood pressure changed significantly over time as did heart rate. Planned comparisons revealed that systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to when residents had Paro (systolic, P = 0.048; diastolic, P = 0.05). Diastolic blood pressure increased significantly after Paro was withdrawn (P = 0.03).” | “Interacting with Paro has a physiological effect on cardiovascular measures, which is similar to findings with live animals.” |
Sung et al (2015) [43], Taiwan | “Participants communication and interaction skills and activity participation were significantly improved after receiving 4-week robot-assisted therapy.” | “By interacting with a robot pet, such as Paro, the communication, interaction skills, and activity participation of the older adults can be improved. The robot-assisted therapy can be provided as a routine activity program and has the potential to improve social health of older adults in residential care facilities.” |