The Usability and Impact of a Low-Cost Pet Robot for Older Adults and People With Dementia: Qualitative Content Analysis of User Experiences and Perceptions on Consumer Websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".