Wendy Moyle1,2, Cindy Jones1,2, Jenny Murfield1, Lukman Thalib3, Elizabeth Beattie4, David Shum1,5,6, Brian Draper7. 1. a Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University , Nathan, Brisbane , Queensland , Australia. 2. b School of Nursing and Midwifery, Nathan Campus, Griffith University , Nathan, Brisbane , Queensland , Australia. 3. c Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences , Qatar University , Qatar. 4. d School of Nursing , Queensland University of Technology , Kelvin Grove, Brisbane , Queensland , Australia. 5. e School of Applied Psychology, Mt Gravatt Campus, Griffith University , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia. 6. f Neuropsychology and Applied Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health , Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences , Beijing , China. 7. g School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales , Sydney , Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a cluster-randomised controlled trial exploring the effect of a therapeutic companion robot (PARO) compared to a look-alike plush toy and usual care on dementia symptoms of long-term care residents. Complementing the reported quantitative outcomes , this paper provides critical reflection and commentary on individual participant responses to PARO, observed through video recordings , with a view to informing clinical practice and research. METHOD: A descriptive, qualitative design with five participants selected from the PARO intervention arm of the trial. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673). RESULTS: The five participants and their responses to PARO are presented in terms of three issues: i.) Different pre-intervention clinical presentations and different responses; ii.) Same individual, different response - the need for continual assessment and review; and iii.) The ethics of giving and retrieving PARO. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed in relation to each issue. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that one approach does not fit all, and that there is considerable variation in responses to PARO. A number of recommendations are discussed to aid the delivery of psychosocial interventions with PARO in practice, as well as to guide future research.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We undertook a cluster-randomised controlled trial exploring the effect of a therapeutic companion robot (PARO) compared to a look-alike plush toy and usual care on dementia symptoms of long-term care residents. Complementing the reported quantitative outcomes , this paper provides critical reflection and commentary on individual participant responses to PARO, observed through video recordings , with a view to informing clinical practice and research. METHOD: A descriptive, qualitative design with five participants selected from the PARO intervention arm of the trial. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673). RESULTS: The five participants and their responses to PARO are presented in terms of three issues: i.) Different pre-intervention clinical presentations and different responses; ii.) Same individual, different response - the need for continual assessment and review; and iii.) The ethics of giving and retrieving PARO. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed in relation to each issue. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that one approach does not fit all, and that there is considerable variation in responses to PARO. A number of recommendations are discussed to aid the delivery of psychosocial interventions with PARO in practice, as well as to guide future research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Care Planning; Cognitive Impairment; Psychosocial Interventions; Qualitative; Robotics
Authors: Hannah Louise Bradwell; Katie Jane Edwards; Rhona Winnington; Serge Thill; Ray B Jones Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 2.692