This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Aging, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://aging.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Worldwide, populations are aging exponentially. Older adults and people with dementia are especially at risk of social isolation and loneliness. Social robots, including robotic pets, have had positive impacts on older adults and people with dementia by providing companionship, improving mood, reducing agitation, and facilitating social interaction. Nevertheless, the issue of affordability can hinder technology access. The Joy for All (JfA) robotic pets have showed promise as examples of low-cost alternatives. However, there has been no research that investigated the usability and impact of such low-cost robotic pets based on perceptions and experiences of its use with older adults and people with dementia.
The aim of our study was to explore the usability and impact of the JfA robotic cat, as an example of a low-cost robot, based on perceptions and experiences of using the JfA cat for older adults and people with dementia.
We used a novel methodology of analyzing a large volume of information that was uploaded by reviewers of the JfA cat onto online consumer review sites. Data were collected from 15 consumer websites. This provided a total of 2445 reviews. Next, all reviews were screened. A total of 1327 reviews that contained information about use of the JfA cat for older adults or people with dementia were included for analysis. These were reviews that contained terms relating to “older adults,” “dementia,” and “institutional care” and were published in the English language. Descriptive statistics was used to characterize available demographic information, and textual data were qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis.
Most reviews were derived from consumer sites in the United States, and most reviewers were family members of users (ie, older adults and people with dementia). Based on the qualitative content analysis, 5 key themes were generated: prior expectations, perceptions, meaningful activities, impacts, and practicalities. Reviewers had prior expectations of the JfA cat, which included circumstantial reasons that prompted them to purchase this technology. Their perceptions evolved after using the technology, where most reported positive perceptions about their appearance and interactivity. The use of the robot provided opportunities for users to care for it and incorporate it into their routine. Finally, reviewers also shared information about the impacts of device and practicalities related to its use.
This study provides useful knowledge about the usability and impact of a low-cost pet robot, based on experiences and perceptions of its use. These findings can help researchers, robot developers, and clinicians understand the viability of using low-cost robotic pets to benefit older adults and people with dementia. Future research should consider evaluating design preferences for robotic pets, and compare the effects of low-cost robotic pets with other more technologically advanced robotic pets.
Worldwide, the population is aging exponentially. Since the prevalence of dementia greatly increases with age, the corresponding number of people with dementia is also on the rise [
The Joy for All (JfA) robotic pets have been identified as low-cost and commercially available innovations that have been used for older people and people with dementia [
Joy for All robotic pets.
Touch interaction capabilities of the Joy for All cat. Used with permission from Joy for All.
Despite its potential as a therapeutic device, there is a lack of research to understand the usability and impact of the JfA cat based on perceptions and experiences of its use with older adults and people with dementia. As such, this study aims to explore the perceptions and experiences of using the JfA cat for older adults and people with dementia, using user-generated content published on consumer websites. This is a novel methodology that will be described below.
The data used for this research are located on public platforms (ie, consumer review sites). Therefore, informed consent for this study was not obtained. However, as the use of direct quotes from consumer reviews could potentially make them identifiable, the quotes that were illustrated in this study were minimally amended to ensure users’ anonymity. This study was approved by the National University of Ireland Galway Research Ethics Committee (reference number R20.JUN.12).
To date, most research that aims to understand experiences using social robots has traditionally been researcher driven [
Data collection involved 3 key steps. First, online consumer review sites were identified through a Google search, using the search terms “Joy for All cat” and “user review”. The researcher’s (WK) internet browsing history and cookies were cleared, and the search was conducted in the incognito mode. Next, the first 100 consumer sites identified from the Google search that contained consumer reviews of the robotic cat were selected as data collection sites. All reviews were manually extracted into Microsoft Excel. This step was essential to ensure a clear audit trail, as the content of a webpage may change depending on what the researcher searches for and researcher’s location [
Reviews were included if they contained information about the use of the robotic cat for older adults or people with dementia in any settings and were published in the English language.
As not all reviews contained information regarding users’ age and diagnoses, innovative approaches had to be undertaken to ensure that all relevant reviews were adequately considered for inclusion. First, as the average age of becoming a grandparent is between 50 and 69 years in several countries [
Included terms related to older adults, such as “older adult”, “elderly”, “elder”, “senior”, “grandmother”, or “grandfather” or explicit comment that users of the JfA robotic cat are aged 60 years and above
Contained terms related to dementia, such as “dementia”, “Alzheimer’s disease”, “memory loss”, “memory problems”, “cognitive impairments” or “cognitive issues”, “memory care”
Contained terms related to institutional care, such as “nursing home”, “assisted living facility”, “retirement home”
Published in English language
All reviews that did not meet these inclusion criteria were excluded. Reviews that were included were cleaned and formatted on Microsoft Excel before being exported into NVivo 12 (QSR International) for data analysis.
Descriptive statistics was applied to characterize the number of reviews, available demographic information about users of the JfA cat, and the average star ratings given by users. Textual data were qualitatively analyzed using inductive content analysis, as described by Hsieh and Shannon [
The data analysis proceeded as follows: First, 3 coders (WK, SW, and PH) immersed themselves in the data by reading all data repeatedly to obtain a sense of the whole and to allow new insights to emerge [
Flowchart (identification of reviews).
Consumer sites and reviews identified.
Consumer review sites (source) | Number of reviews |
Amazon (total: 6 sites) | 2068 |
Joy For All | 214 |
Best Buy | 25 |
MindCare Store | 7 |
Eugeria | 5 |
Caregiver Products | 5 |
Alzstore | 32 |
Alzproducts | 10 |
QVC | 79 |
Walmart | 0 |
A total of 2445 consumer reviews were submitted over a 5.5-year period from December 4, 2015, to July 24, 2020. Of these, 1327 reviews met the inclusion criteria and were included for data analysis. Most reviews were derived from consumer sites from the United States (n=948), Canada (n=132), the United Kingdom (n=80), and Australia (n=13). Most reviews contained information about review date and star rating (n=1309). Overall, the number of reviews increased steadily from 2015 to 2020, and its average star rating was 4.75 (
Star rating and number of reviews across the years.
Year of review | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
Number of reviews | 15 | 180 | 222 | 228 | 372 | 292 |
Average star rating | 4.13 | 4.63 | 4.86 | 4.74 | 4.76 | 4.76 |
Information about the review authors and users is presented in
Information about review authors and users.
Information | Sample size, n (%) (N=1327) | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
1038 (78.22) | |||
|
|
|
Children | 770 (58.03) | ||
|
|
|
Grandchildren | 120 (9.04) | ||
|
|
|
Partners | 52 (3.92) | ||
|
|
|
Other relatives | 96 (7.23) | ||
|
Self | 22 (1.66) | ||||
|
Others (friends, care workers) | 6 (0.45) | ||||
|
No information | 247 (18.61) | ||||
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Older adults | 586 (44.16) | |||
|
|
People with dementia, cognitive impairment or memory issues | 687 (51.77) | |||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Female | 988 (74.45) | |||
|
|
Male | 121 (9.12) | |||
|
|
No information | 218 (16.43) | |||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Long-term care facilities | 399 (30.07) | |||
|
|
Memory care facilities | 56 (4.22) | |||
|
|
Retirement homes | 16 (1.21) | |||
|
|
Other care facilities | 49 (3.69) | |||
|
|
Own homes | 19 (1.43) | |||
|
|
No information | 788 (59.38) |
The JfA cat was described as being for the use for older adults in 44.16% (586/1327) of reviews, while 51.77% (687/1327) described their use for people with dementia, cognitive impairment, or memory issues. The majority (n=1109) contained information about users’ gender, of which 89.09% (n=988) were females. Less than half (n=539) provided explicit information about the setting in which the device was used (
Five themes were generated from the qualitative analysis: (1) prior expectations, (2) evolving perceptions, (3) meaningful activities, (4) impact of the robotic cat, and (5) practical aspects surrounding the use of the JfA cat.
Main themes, subthemes, and exemplar codes.
Main themes and subthemes | Prevalence, n (%)a | Examples of exemplar quotes |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Circumstances | 390 (29.39) |
|
||
Expectations | 182 (13.72) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Appearance | 364 (27.43) |
|
||
Interactivity | 418 (31.50) |
|
|||
Expectations met | 415 (31.27) |
|
|||
Ambivalence or rejection | 114 (8.59) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Companionship | 270 (20.35) |
|
||
Doing something (activities) | 500 (37.68) |
|
|||
Facilitation and support | 75 (5.65) |
|
|||
Treating the robot cat as if it were real | 70 (5.28) |
|
|||
Topic of conversation | 78 (5.88) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Positive impacts on users | 1000 (75.36) |
|
||
Negative impacts (users) | 20 (1.51) |
|
|||
Positive impacts (others) | 111 (8.36) |
|
|||
Negative impacts on others/caregivers | 3 (0.23) |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Positive aspects | 409 (30.82) |
|
||
Negative aspects | 118 (8.89) |
|
|||
Suggestions for improvement | 51 (3.84) |
|
aBased on a total of 1327 reviews.
This theme describes the circumstances which prompted reviewers to acquire the JfA robotic cat for the older person or person with dementia, and reviewers’ perceptions of this technology prior to its use. Some reviewers (223/1327, 16.80%) commented that users had previous experience with or liked cats or other animals. However, users were now unable to own a live animal due to circumstantial or personal reasons (181/1327, 13.64%), such as institutional restrictions in residential care facilities and reduced physical or cognitive capacities.
Recently my 93 mother's dementia progressed to the point that she required assisted living in a nursing home. She was devastated that she could not take her two cats with her. She misses them more than anything.
Other reviewers indicated that they were prompted to purchase the JfA cat due to concerns about loneliness and isolation (102/1327, 7.69%), especially for intended users who lived alone or in residential facilities. The impact of COVID-19 measures was discussed in more recent reviews, where reviewers shared that visitation and activity restrictions exacerbated feelings of isolation. As such, expectations were focused on the users’ likes of animals, and hopes that it might provide comfort, companionship, and improve their overall quality of life.
When my family was faced with having to admit my 91-year-old Granny to a memory care facility it was devastating for us to think of her in there all alone and sad....
Due to the pandemic and imposed isolation and restrictions, all enrichment activities such as visiting music, games, exercises, therapy animals were ceased. Residents were no longer allowed to eat with other residents. We hoped the therapy cat would provide some comfort.
A few reviewers (70/1327, 5.28%) reported skepticism about the usefulness of the robotic pet, and concerns about how users would perceive it or respond to it.
I braced myself for a dismissive laugh, a ‘what the hell did you get this for, what a waste of money’.
At first, I was hesitant because I was worried that she (my mother) would be insulted if I gave her a ‘toy’.
This theme describes perceptions about the appearance and interactive features of the JfA cat, and whether it has met reviewers’ expectations. Perceptions about its appearance were mainly positive (312/1327, 23.51%), as reviewers commented about its life-likeness, size, and weight as resembling a real cat. Reviewers (357/1327, 26.90%) also commented about the device’s realistic movements and vocalizations, especially its purring. Some pointed out that their JfA cat looked similar to users’ previous cats. The robotic cat has sensors to respond to light and touch, however, its vocal and movement responses are nonprogrammable and are unpredictable. Some reviewers perceived its unpredictability as behaviors that resembled a live cat.
At intervals, this cat flicks its ears, raises a paw to its face as if it's washing, turns it head when touched, blinks its eyes, and partially closes its eyes; and purrs and meows when it's head and back are petted. It also rolls back to expose its belly, and what is funny about the cat, is that the moments are unpredictable, and spontaneous just as if it were real.
However, a few reviewers were negative in their comments (105/1327, 7.91%). The robotic cat was thought to be hard to the touch, which reduced its cuddliness and realism. The meowing sound of the cat was perceived as sounding like a person imitating its meow, and some movements were perceived to be mechanical looking and sounding. Although most reviewers said that not being life-like did not influence the interaction that users had with the technology, others commented that users’ acceptance of the device was negatively impacted.
She (my mother) doesn’t seem to notice the battery pack which is quite hard but likes to pet it (JfA cat) and keeps it on her bed at night.
The facial and ear movements do make some mechanical noise, but they're not that loud and don't detract from it. The one thing that I could do without is that occasionally the front half twists and rolls back, then after a few minutes it comes back up. That's when you hear the loud motor really kick in and I find it to be an unnatural movement.
While she (my mother) seemed to like the cat at first, she noticed the jerky movements and mechanical sounds it makes when it turns its head and she didn't like this. Three weeks after giving it to her she says that it's a beautiful cat, but that there's something wrong with it.
Perceptions of the JfA cat sometimes evolved with its use. Although most reviewers who discussed about their expectations of the robotic cat perceived it to have met or exceeded their prior expectations and fitted the needs of users (182/1327, 13.72%), some considered that the JfA cat may not be suitable for everyone. Similarly, a few users were ambivalent or had negative perceptions, and rejected the technology (72/1327, 5.43%).
We didn't know if (my father) would like it, scoff at it, or soon get bored with it. His eyes lit up the moment it (JfA cat) was taken out of the box.
My elderly aunt found the cat “creepy” and wanted no part of it. I can see how some elderly people would like this mechanical replica, but she didn't like it.
This theme describes the engagement in meaningful activities with the JfA cat. Use of the JfA cat provided opportunities to supervise or provide care for older people and people with dementia (500/1327, 37.68%). Activities included holding, petting or brushing it, talking to it, keeping it on their laps, sleeping with it, and taking it to places. Some activities, such as naming the cat after their previous pet or loved ones, also provided an avenue for users to reminisce about past experiences. The robot’s interactivity also appeared to be perceived as behaviors of reciprocity, which facilitated users to continue engaging with it.
She (my mother) no longer speaks and appears somewhat catatonic. We were looking for ways to 'reach' her since talking to her and trying other activities were fruitless. We gave her this cat and got a glimpse into our mom again! The purring, meowing and movements awakened my mom and she came alive.
He (my dad) stroked her head, tail and back. He wanted to know her name. We told him she needed him to pick one for her. She became Fluffy! She meowed...He meowed back and laughed....
In some instances, the JfA cat was perceived to replace a lack of activity or participation, or replace undesirable or restless behaviors. Reviewers also commented that it provided companionship, and some users developed an attachment toward it.
She (my mother) has stopped looking for her kids at night and she is focused on taking care of her cat.
She (my mother) will hang onto it (JfA cat) for dear life and not want to give it back to us. She has it with her at all times except at meals and during structured activities.
The JfA cat also provided users with a topic of conversation with others, including family members, friends, care providers, and residents within care facilities. Some passers-by would stop to interact with the user, talking about the JfA cat. This suggests that the robotic pet provided different opportunities for interactions.
She (my mother) had great difficulty speaking but would ask for “baby” every morning, would meow back at the cat and carry on an indecipherable conversation everyday.
I was delighted that not only did she (my mother) find it wonderful, but she also had the experience that all the dementia patients in her facility, including the nurses, are doting and cooing at the kitty cat. I was pleased that it brought her comfort and joy from the attention she got as well as the kitty itself.
Users varied as to whether they considered the JfA cat to be real. Reviewers (74/1327, 5.58%) mentioned that users were aware that this was not a live cat, but still enjoyed the device. While some commented about explicit attempts to introduce or remind users that the JfA cat is a robotic device, others suggested that users should treat it as a real cat. Some users who were not aware that the JfA cat was a robotic device treated it as if it were a live animal (70/1327, 5.28%) and tried to feed it with food and water, which dirtied it. Such perceptions also caused anxiety among some users, who became concerned that it would not eat or drink, or that it would escape. The device’s vocalizations caused concerns among some users (70/1327, 5.28%), who became worried that the cat was upset. Some also exhibited distress when the robotic cat was not moving.
It’s unclear whether she (my mother) believes it (JfA cat) is real or not - but we avoid clarifying that it isn't, and all try to act interact with it in front of her as though it is real, and of course we helped her pick a name!
Dad was nervous his cat would escape and get lost or that no one had given her food or water and she'd die. Mom had to stop him from bring Fluffy water (i.e., dumping it over her).
This theme describes how the JfA robotic cat impacted the primary user and the caregiver. Most reviewers (874/1327, 65.86%) reported that users exhibited positive emotions. These included expressions of love and affection toward the robotic cat, expressions of joy, and improved mood. Several reviewers (228/1327, 17.18%) also commented that use of this technology was calming, provided comfort, and gave users a sense of purpose.
She [my mother] now has a reason to get out of bed in the morning and is back to her old self again.
I would say this week has been his calmest, happiest, most relaxed, enjoyable week in possibly three or more years! Because of this life-like, mechanical companion designed exactly for people like him.
She never slept through the night. Usually, I am up with her constantly, but we actually had to wake her this morning. She actually went to sleep with her cat cuddled in her arms.
The reviewers and other caregivers were also impacted. Reviewers shared about positive emotions and physical relief that they, their family members, and care staff experienced from observing users’ interactions with the robotic cat (161/1327, 12.13%). Amidst these feelings, some reviewers shared about a sense of conflict or dilemma in watching users interact with a robotic device.
The amount of joy this has brought her - and me watching her interact with the cat - is priceless.
Now honestly for some in my family the idea that my mom is in love with a mechanical cat and believes it is real can be a distressing and shocking new reality. But to see her joy with this cat and to occasionally use it as a diversion when she sundowns or when she goes through an angry phase is priceless.
The JfA cat was also reported to have a positive impact on other people (111/1327, 8.36%), such as users’ neighbors, or other residents in their care facility, who also enjoyed the technology.
She enjoys sharing it with all the other residents, and they agree that petting this purring cat is very soothing and relaxing.
This theme describes comments about the facilitation that was rendered to support users’ interaction with the JfA cat, overall experiences of the technology, and technical aspects of its use. Some reviewers provided mediation and supported users who perceived it to be a real animal (75/1327, 5.65%). Actions included reassuring users that the JfA cat was well taken care of, keeping it on mute or turning it off at night when users fell asleep, preparing spare batteries and being ready to prepare to change them as needed, and regularly cleaning food stains off its mouth. A few mentioned the use of a waterproof bib on the JfA cat’s neck, and creating artificial feeding stations. Some reviewers also commented that they purchased an additional robotic cat as a back-up device.
It was purring a lot last night and I heard him telling the cat “shhhhh”. I looked over and he's looking it in the eyes and shhhhing it. So I turned the cat off for a while.
I've got her (JfA cat) a collar and made her a tag and a feeding station (thank you hot glue and modge podge), so that he can care for her the way years of instinct and memories tell him he should.
Overall, most reviewers (409/1327, 30.82%) reported positive experiences. This included comments about satisfaction, and comments that they would recommend this device to others.
If you have someone in your life living with dementia or Alzheimer's, or something similar, please consider...this for that person. I haven't seen my grandmother that happy since before she became sick.
Nevertheless, some reviewers (118/1327, 8.89%) shared negative experiences, which included comments about the technical aspects of its use. Experiences about the JfA cat’s technical performance were mixed. While some reviewers shared that the technology was durable and lasted for over a year at the time of review (32/1327, 2.41%), others commented that it only lasted for a week to 8 months (48/1327, 3.62%). Others elaborated that the short lifespan of the device was sometimes attributed to users’ behaviors, such as attempts to feed it or holding it too tightly, which hindered or damaged the device’s mechanics. Such issues led to disappointment among some reviewers.
Grandma holds it so tight that when the cat wants to put its paw up or roll on its back, she is preventing the movement. Now, it sounds like the motor has been damaged.
It’s really sad that this cat did not last. My elderly mother is devastated....Really, really, really disappointed.
Some reviewers also raised concerns about difficulties cleaning the robotic cat and maintaining its cleanliness.
Ours is showing wear around the cat’s mouth as grandma keeps insisting on feeding it real food...so I am cleaning it ALOT with dove soap, water and a washcloth.
It is difficult to clean Lucette's (name for the JfA cat) fur. Elderly people do tend to be like children and stroke their pets with sticky hands.
Finally, some reviewers (51/1327, 3.84%) suggested how the JfA cat could be improved. These included improvements to its appearance, such as having more cushioning to make it softer to hold, having a more realistic “meowing” sound, and more interactive movements. Reviewers also commented that the device should be more durable and customizable, and suggested that volume controls or options to turn off the movement of the cat while keeping its sounds on should be made available.
This is the first study to use a novel web-based approach to explore the usability and impact of a low-cost robotic pet for older adults and people with dementia, based on perceptions and experiences of its use. Most of the review content was derived from consumer sites that were based in the United States, and most reviewers were family members of older adults and people with dementia. Overall, most reviewers had positive perceptions and experiences of using the JfA cat and found it to be beneficial and practical for older adults and people with dementia. Nevertheless, not all were satisfied with this technology.
Users’ previous experiences of pet ownership were frequently reported as a circumstantial reason for purchasing the JfA cat for the intended user. This finding aligns with previous findings that users’ like of animals influenced their acceptance of a robotic pet [
Most perceptions about the JfA cat were positive, which suggests its design as a familiar animal was acceptable. In previous studies, familiarly designed robotic animals, such as the JustoCat and the NeCoRo cat, were also well received by older adults and people with dementia [
Use of the robotic cat offered older adults and people with dementia opportunities to participate in meaningful activities. Older adults and people with dementia participated in an array of activities with the JfA cat, such as talking to it and about it, cuddling, and stroking it. These findings resonate with results from studies which used other robotic pets [
The relationship between engagement in meaningful activities and health outcomes has been established [
The movements and vocalizations of the JfA cat appeared to be perceived positively by users as behaviors of reciprocity. Reciprocity, or the give and take that occurs between individuals, can influence the maintenance of social relationships [
The JfA cat also positively impacted caregivers, providing them with a sense of relief and positive emotions, which included feelings of happiness and contentment. There is currently a lack of research that has focused on how robotic pets impact caregivers. More research is needed to increase understanding, especially since one of the key premises for developing social robots is to supplement and support the care of older people with dementia [
Finally, despite the overall positive perceptions and experiences, some reviewers reported negative opinions about the cat’s design. This included comments about its “hardness” and lack of sophistication, such as audible mechanics during movements and unrealistic “meowing” sounds. These issues did not appear to influence most users’ interaction with the robotic cat, suggesting that reviewers may have a higher expectation than the end users in wanting the robotic cat to behave more realistically and autonomously. Nevertheless, these issues resulted in the rejection of this technology by a minority of users. Comments about the robustness of the technology were mixed, with some reviewers being dissatisfied with its durability. Some elaborated that users’ handling of the JfA cat, such as holding it too tightly or dropping it, affected its functioning. The relatively short longevity of the device has potential to cause negative impacts such as emotional distress, especially among users who have developed an attachment toward it [
Despite the valuable new knowledge that was generated through this study, there are limitations that should be acknowledged. Data that were used for this study were self-reported information that was gathered through publicly available sources. The anonymity of users makes it difficult to verify the authenticity of the content, and to verify the ages and diagnoses of the users of the robotic cat. Most reviewers were family members, and as such, their perceptions and experiences might differ from actual opinions of the primary end user (ie, older adults or people with dementia). Although most included reviews were shown as verified purchases, it is not possible to confirm the authenticity of review or distinguish potentially deceptive reviews. There could also be a bias in terms of the representation of data, as not all consumers will upload their reviews on consumer websites. Nevertheless, given the analysis of the large number of reviews from multiple websites across a 5-year period, as well as the richness of the data contained in these reviews, it may be reasonable to infer that the findings from this study represent real-world perceptions and experiences of using the JfA cat for older adults and people with dementia.
This study provides important knowledge about the usability and impact of a low-cost robotic pet for older adults and people with dementia based on perceptions and experiences of its use. It analyzed user-driven content to access a unique perspective toward an understanding of this phenomenon. We found that circumstantial reasons, such as inability to care for a pet, have prompted the use of the robotic cat, and that familiarly designed robotic pets can be accepted by older adults and people with dementia. Although the JfA cat is less technologically advanced than other robotic pets, its interactive features were generally well received. Use of the JfA cat facilitated participation in meaningful occupations, as it provided older adults and people with dementia opportunities to participate in various activities. These activities elicited positive psychosocial impacts on both users and caregivers. Nevertheless, facilitation by caregivers may be necessary to monitor for and mitigate potential negative impacts. Although perceptions and experiences were mainly positive, negative aspects of the JfA cat’s design and interactivity were raised. Experiences of its durability were also mixed, which highlights the need to improve the technical robustness of this device.
These insights are vital in helping researchers, robot developers, and clinicians to understand the viability of using low-cost robotic pets to benefit older adults and people with dementia. Future research should consider evaluating design preferences for nonfamiliarly versus familiarly designed robotic pets. It will also be valuable to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the impacts of low-cost robotic pets with other more technologically advanced robotic pets, to understand any similarities or differences of their impacts on the mental and social health of older adults and people with dementia. A process evaluation may also be conducted to identify factors that may explain any outcome variations. This has the potential to influence equal access to technology if their impacts on the psychosocial health of users are comparable.
Data extraction form.
Coding framework.
Settings.
intercoder reliability test
Joy for All
We thank Ben Meehan for his support and guidance in using the NVivo 12 software for data analysis. The research presented in this paper was carried out within the Dementia: Intersectorial Strategy for Training and Innovation Network for Current Technology (DISTINCT) Innovative Training Network, which received funding from the European Union’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network (ITN) action, H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018, under grant agreement number 813196.
WQK conceptualized the research, developed the review questions and review design, and collected the data. WQK, SW, and PH coded and analyzed the data. Preliminary results were discussed with RMD. WQK initiated the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read the draft and provided critical feedback. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
None declared.