OTOtherGeriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)2022

Use of robots to encourage social engagement between older adults.

Yi-Chun Lin, Jing Fan, Judith A Tate and 2 others

PMID 34847509

WHAT IT FOUND

Pairs of older adults remained highly engaged with robot-led activities, but Simon Says produced more talking to the robot while book sorting produced more talking and helping between partners.

Key findings

01Most sessions were rated at the highest engagement levels for attentiveness, attendance, participation, and absence of boredom.

02Simon Says produced more talking to the robot, while book sorting produced more talking to the partner and more helping episodes.

03Participants were mostly in a neutral emotional state, and boredom episodes were rare but longest during Simon Says.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

There was no comparison group, and no inferential statistics were conducted because only seven pairs were analysed. Participants were volunteers and apathy was not assessed, so the study does not show an effect on apathy. The same pairs stayed together for three weeks, so familiarity may have influenced engagement. One person dropped out and two videos were unusable, so the analysable video set was small. A single rater coded all videos, although a gerontological nurse expert reviewed portions and coding. The robot was delivered together with paired activities, virtual reality, researcher monitoring, and repeated sessions, so the contribution of the robot alone cannot be separated. The activities may not have triggered interest for some participants.

Declared interests

The supplied text does not report author conflicts or funding; the publication types note NIH extramural research support.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that robots treat apathy or improve long-term care outcomes. The study did not assess apathy, had no comparison group, and used seven pairs with no inferential statistics.

Read it on PubMed →