Social Robots

---

There is a lack of research which directly measures the impact of social robots on social isolation and loneliness. However, there is evidence that these robots can be effective at reducing anxiety, and depression, and improving quality of life (QoL) which are associated with lower social isolation and loneliness. Given what we know about this relationship, our best estimate is that social isolation and loneliness could lead to a small reduction in social isolation and loneliness amongst older adults.

Social robot interventions were preferred when delivered individually (particularly PARO) since they were found to be more acceptable and applicable than group interventions. 

The study encompasses older adults aged 55 and above from seven diverse countries, namely Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, the United States, Australia, Japan, and Spain. Among the 1,042 older adults included in the study, a substantial 80% exhibited dementia or cognitive impairment. In addition, the majority of participants were women; however, the review did not provide further demographic details.

On average, the cost of social robot interventions is likely high.

Aside from the cost of the robots, other costs could include training for providers or bringing in external practitioners to train staff or facilitators of the intervention. Evaluations of three social robot brands suggested a cost of between $3,000-$19,000 per robot.

Our confidence in social isolation and loneliness reduction estimate is very low.

The available studies have not directly measured the impact of social robots on social isolation or loneliness. The research focuses on the impact of social robots on anxiety, depression and QoL—among other measures—which are known risk factors for social isolation and loneliness. 

This level of evidence suggests that the findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further high-quality research may be needed to confirm these results.

To implement this intervention effectively, the following strategies can be considered:

1. Prefer Individual Interventions: Prioritize individual social robot interventions over group settings, as personalized interactions are more acceptable and applicable. This approach acknowledges that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable.
2. Dose-Response Effect: Acknowledge the uncertainty regarding dose-response effects and implement interventions as needed.
3. Augmenting Human-Animal Interaction: Emphasize that social robots are intended as supplements, not substitutes, for human-animal interaction. Maintain a balance between social robot interactions and the invaluable benefits derived from live animal interaction to uphold the rights and autonomy of older adults.
4. Continuous Feedback and Adaptation: Establish mechanisms for continuous feedback and evaluation of the social robot interventions. Regularly assess user satisfaction, adapt interventions based on feedback (via surveys, interviews, or direct observation), and refine the approach to align with evolving user preferences and needs.

The review did not discuss equity concerning the implementation of this intervention, however, the high costs of social robots pose accessibility barriers for low-resourced areas and low-income individuals. 

Tailoring of the intervention was not discussed across PROGRESS+ factors.

The data in the review was not analyzed across PROGRESS+ factors.