It’s no secret that the world in currently experiencing an aging population, meaning the number of older adults living on our planet is on the rise. While this may not seem like a big deal to some, the health care system is having a great deal of pressure placed upon them.

The love between humans and animals is like no other, but very few people know about the true benefits that come from this type of relationship. With the recent introduction of therapeutic robotic animals in caring for older adults, it’s important that the benefits of both therapeutic interventions be understood. But which is more effective?

While I can’t give you an answer to that question, I can compile a whole bunch of information and research to help you make your only educated decision. This blog post is going to compare and contrast both therapeutic interventions, looking at how they support older adults in achieving the goal of successful aging.

---

Real Animals

For people all over the world, animals play an important role in helping to shape their lifestyle. This role does not change or alter for older adults, but instead is actually believed to have the potential to become even more essential (Scheibeck et al, 2011). It is believed that owning, living with or having regular visits from a dog can help shape older adult’s lives, supporting successful aging (Fox & Ray, 2019). This is due an extensive list of researched benefits that come from animal interactions. One of those potential benefits being that older adults who own dogs have an increased chance of improved health outcomes (Friedmann et al, 2020). For those that live with chronic conditions, this promotion of improved health outcomes is even further emphasized (Friedmann et al, 2020).

As aging occurs, a decrease in the quality and quantity of physical exercises occurs, but living with a pet may be a non-pharmaceutical option to help prevent this (Friedmann et al, 2020). A recent study conducted in 2020 found that older adults who were living within their community had a better level of physical functioning when they owned a dog compared to those who did not (Friedmann et al, 2020). With pet ownership comes responsibility and the need for regular chores, all of which require at least minimal physical movement and exercise. Chores such as grooming, petting, feeding, carrying and walking may seem minimal, but to an older adult living alone, this may provide them the motivation they need to be physically active. This physical activity can also help prevent aging health concerns that are on the rise like obesity, hypertension, heart failure, type 2 diabetes and stroke. 

In addition to an increased risk of physical health concerns, older adults are also more likely to experience feeling lonely (Stanley et al, 2014). Loss of social ties due to an increase in deaths of those around them, loss of physical abilities and even decreased health might be potential explanations for this increased loneliness among older adults. For some, loneliness may seem to like a minor concern, but research has found that a feeling of loneliness has more dire effects than many realize. When someone feels lonely, specifically an older adult, it increases their risk of developing a state of negative well-being (Stanley et al, 2014). This negative well-being can cause major harm to mental and physical health and can contribute to a risk of early death (Stanley et al, 2014). For older adults that choose to live alone, having a pet can be beneficial in reducing the risk of them feeling alone. Associations have been found between older adults who choose to live alone being more than 36% less likely to report feeling like they are lonely when they own a pet (Stanley et al, 2014). With this being known, a non-pharmaceutical intervention might include trialling a pet in their home.

For older adults living in residential facilities like retirement or nursing facilities, the impact that animals have is not lost. Many facilities, especially those in North America, utilize visiting dog therapy programs and even live-in pets owned by the staff. A study conducted in 2016 found there was actually a slight correlation between some residents of nursing homes having improved sleeping patterns after just three weeks of bi-weekly therapy dog visits (8). While there is no real understanding as to why this correlation exists, it does show promising options for older adults who experience sleeping conditions. The study does suggest however that further research should be done in this area, looking at longer study duration periods and looking for a deeper level of understanding within the potential correlation (Thodberg et al, 2016).

For individuals who are receiving palliative care, therapeutic animal visits are also a common occurrence. These animal visits are normally with dogs but may also include cats, rabbits, birds, horses and some exotic animals. Having these visits, or even a live-in dog, has helped hospice facilities improve their patient’s overall experiences (MacDonald & Barrett, 2016). Family members have reported feeling more comfortable and relaxed, allowing them to feel more confident in the care their loved one is receiving (MacDonald & Barrett, 2016). The use of animals in this setting can also help to facilitate communication, increase positive emotional responses, promote relaxation and increase an individual’s motivation to take part in physical activity (Schmitz et al, 2017). All of these benefits argue that animal based interventions should be utilized for individuals receiving palliative care.

In the UK, a researcher examined and evaluated the impact that separating an owner and a pet can have, particularly looking at older adults who need to move into residential facilities (Fox & Ray, 2019). The paper proposed that for older adults, a population already experiencing great amount of loss, the loss of their pet could potentially trigger a major bereavement. In fact, the researcher poses the idea that losing a pet, to death or separation, has the potential to do the same amount of harm as losing a human family member (Fox & Ray, 2019). The paper pushes the idea that the separation not only harms the human, but also the dog’s well-being, having them end up in potential unsuitable homes or overcrowded shelters. It is proposed that this separation is actually in violation of human rights, that the government should be re-examining their definition of family to include pets (Fox & Ray, 2019). With so many known benefits and research showing that the loss of a pet could equal the loss of a human, it’s important to recognize the significance of the human-animal relationship (Fox & Ray, 2019). This change could alter the animal and pet ruling in residential facilities, particularly for older adults.

  Despite the positive knowledge regarding the benefits that pets have for older adults, power ownership rates decrease rapidly with aging (Friedmann et al, 2020). Some researchers believe that this decrease in the rate of pet ownership may be connected to the decrease in cognition and physical functioning, similar to a mirror effect (Friedmann et al, 2020). While it is unclear even if these are truly correlated to one another, it is possible this connection could leave a two-way problem with both having the potential to trigger each other. It would be beneficial for more research to be done in this area, examining if and how this chain reaction occurs to look for possible solutions. 

While there are many studies that show the positive impacts on mental health that animals can have, some studies have also discovered some negative concerns regarding this type of therapeutic programs (Enmarker et al, 2015). When bringing animals into a residential facility, the home has to properly consider and act on possible precautions that may need to be in place. Some of the potential concerns that exist and sometimes inhibit live animals might include allergies, the nuisance of cleaning up as well as the risk of injury to residents, family members, staff and the animal (Bates, 2019). While some homes are able to take the necessary precautions, not all are prepared for the potential issues that might arise. 

  For older adults living alone, owning a pet has been proven to effectively reduce the feeling of loneliness (Stanley et al, 2014). Despite this, some information collected in recent years suggests that some animals may be more beneficial than others. A study conducted in 2015 wanted to evaluate how owning a pet might decrease an older adult’s chances of self-reporting symptoms related to depression, dividing both cats and dogs as well as human genders (Stanley et al, 2014). Most dog owners, both male and female, reported feeling fewer symptoms and brought forth less concerns regarding the possibility of depression (Stanley et al, 2014). Cat owners however, reported more symptoms of depression than those with dogs, female cat owners showing even higher than males (Stanley et al, 2014). A potential correlation between these findings might be that dogs require more work than most cats, with the extra work having the ability to provide an increase in socialization and physical exercise.

  Overall, it is clear the despite the extensive research that has been done, the use of real animals in the process of aging still needs to be further explored to look at potential areas for improvement. In the future research should also look at examining the benefits of different types of animals, comparing and contrasting those that keep their pet vs those who do not and different living arrangements. Furthermore, it would be beneficial for longer studies such as a longitudinal analysis to be considered and used (Friedmann et al, 2020). 

Robotic Animals

Robotic pets, also commonly referred to as ParoPets, are small robots that replicate different animals through similar appearances and behaviours (Abbott et al, 2019). These pets can come in all shapes and sizes including dogs, cats, seals and birds. While many people know of these robotic pets as toys for children, the constantly evolving technology also has therapeutic benefits for older adults. While they may not be able to run around a room on their own or play fetch, robotic pets can offer many proven benefits. It is actually believed that robotic pets can help contribute to a solution for the global aging epidemic that is currently ongoing (Chu et al, 2019). 

 While this technology may seem simple, some studies have shown that robotic pets can be effective companions for older adults (Chu et al, 2019). This is provided mostly though the interactions that they have the ability to provide. Older adults have been known to cuddle with, pet, groom and sleep with their robotic pet (Hudson et al, 2020). This shows that while they may not be real animals, they can provide similar stimulation for some older adults. Depending on the form of technology used, the size and weight also have the potential to mimic a weighted lap pad or blanket. 

It is a known fact that animals have the potential to decrease the risk of an older adult experiencing negative mental health concerns, making it important to look at how robotic pets compare. While the comparative results are not the same, it is clear that this form of technology can improve some of the negative concerns commonly seen in aging (Abbott et al, 2019). Robotic pets have the proven ability to reduce loneliness, depression and agitation for older adults living in long term care (Abbott et al, 2019). Studies have also found that on top of the reductions listed above, the introduction of robotic pets into the lives of residents can increase their overall quality of life, an important element that contributes to successful aging (Abbott et al, 2019). A study in 2015 focused solely on how robotic pets could benefit older adults with dementia or cognitive impairments that are living in a nursing home (Gustafsson, Svanberg & Mullersdorf, 2015). The study found that by introducing these pets into the lives of individuals with dementia, stimulation was achieved that helped to support an increase in communication and interactions with family members and staff (Gustafsson, Svanberg & Mullersdorf, 2015). Residents also experienced a high level of relaxation due to the level of comfort the robotic pet was able to provide (Gustafsson, Svanberg & Mullersdorf, 2015). 

Similar to live animals, robotic pets can serve to improve overall physical health. A study conducted in 2015 found a correlation between this technology and a decrease in blood pressure as well as heart rate (Broadbent, Robinson & MacDonald, 2015). The study took the blood pressure and heart rate levels three times, before, during, and after the older adults engaged with a robotic seal. The findings determined that systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate decreased during the interactions (Broadbent, Robinson & MacDonald, 2015). The study does note that while these findings are similar to the use of live animals, more thorough and expansive research should be done (Broadbent, Robinson & MacDonald, 2015). This research should explore a long-term study that compares and contrasts the use of robotic animals and trained therapy animals in residential facilities. This information would advocate for and determine the true similarities or differences that exist regarding overall health of older adults.

While the primary use of robotic pets for older adults occurs in residential facilities, this isn’t the only way they are used. Some recent research has looked at how these alternative pets can impact older adults that are living within the community, independently, or with others. A recent 2014 study found that the majority of the 30 healthy older adults involved, all between the ages of 67 and 80, would want to own a robotic pet of their own (McGlynn et al, 2014). Many came to this conclusion after getting to interact with a robotic pet on their own, believing that they could see uses for themselves and/or for individuals they know (McGlynn et al, 2014). While an older adult may not use the pet themself, sharing their pet with others has the potential to increase communication and improve social connections (Hudson et al, 2020). For older adults who are living independently, this minimal interaction could provide them with the opportunity to expand their social circles, expand their support system and allow them to access the benefits that socialization offers. The findings suggest that for adults living in the community, those that live alone may seek the most benefits (Hudson et al, 2020).

While the potential benefits for these robots is clear, there are also many issues when dealing with this form of technology. One of the biggest being that in order for these robotic pets to work, they need to be accepted (Chu et al, 2019). The current older generations that could be benefiting from this form of technology did not necessarily grow up with technology, making it difficult to predict how each individual will react. While they are constantly evolving to become more beneficial, there are also design limitations (McGlynn et al, 2014). While they may look and act like a familiar animal, the truth is that this technology isn’t identical to its real animal counterpart. For some older adults, they are able to instantly see the difference which could cause them to reject the robotic pets when given the opportunity to engage. To add, it is important that robotic pets are also simple and easy to use to ensure they are practical and functional (Robinson et al, 2013). This is important as it allows for the older adults to engage with the pet independently, requiring minimal support from caregivers (Robinson et al, 2013). This not only supports older adults living alone who may have minimal support, but also helps to remove an additional stress from caregivers who are already experiencing high levels of burnout. 

Research is currently being done internationally to look at ways that robotic pets can be altered, one of the many positives that robotic pets have. Instead of having to train each live animal independently, companies can create easy adaptations that work for all future robotic pet products that help increase their effectiveness. A study conducted in 2019 in Taiwan determined that older adults prefer more service-oriented robots instead of those that are companion oriented (Chu et al, 2019). This research can help companies focus their future efforts on creating robotic pets that can help complete even small tasks. Not only will this increase the level of acceptance but also increase positive attitudes and perceived usefulness towards this technology (Chu et al, 2019). This will potentially increase the pet robot’s ability to provide stimulation and entertainment, important factors that have been determined through past research (Robinson et al, 2013)

A current partnership between scientists and Brown University is looking to create a new form of smart robot called ARIES, Affordable Robotic Intelligence for Elderly Support (Bates, 2019). These smart robots will utilize artificial intelligence to help with conducting and completing basic everyday tasks (Bates, 2019). While it is not clear how their production is going, these robots could have the potential to continue being altered, eventually being developed into robotic pets. The use of artificial intelligence could potentially improve the appearances and behaviours of robotic pets, making them more life-like.

While robotic pets can be beneficial, similarly to real animals, the benefits are not always guaranteed. Some studies have reflected that some participants had negative experiences with robotic pets or that some chose not to engage with the robotic pet at all (Abbott et al, 2019). It is important that the dignity of older adults is always maintained, respecting their decisions to take part or not take part in a specific intervention. The use of technology may be intimidating, and a slow introduction may be the most effective route to take. 

Conclusion

It is clear from the research that both interventions have their benefits, but neither is a perfect modality for everyone in the aging population nor should either be exempt from possible therapeutic interventions for older adults. Before pursuing a specific option, professionals, family members and the older adults involved should properly weigh the pros and cons of both options available. It is essential to look at the individual older adults involved, safety or both the animals and humans as well as the costs.

To give you my honest opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. There is no simple “this is what you should use”. Remember to take a personalized approach, taking each individual person into consideration. Some individuals will prefer real animals, others will choose robotic and some may choose neither.

---

Resources

Abbott, R., Orr, N., McGill, P., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Garside, R., Stein, K., & Thompson-Coon, J. (2019). How do “robopets” impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International journal of older people nursing, 14(3), e12239. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239

Abbott, R., Orr, N., McGill, P., Whear, R., Bethel, A., Garside, R., Stein, K., & Thompson-Coon, J. (2019). How do “robopets” impact the health and well-being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International journal of older people nursing, 14(3), e12239. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12239

Bates M. (2019). Robotic Pets: A Senior’s Best Friend?. IEEE pulse, 10(4), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPULS.2019.2922565

Broadbent, E., Robinson, H., & MacDonald, B. (2015). Physiological effects of a companion robot on blood pressure of older people in residential care facility: a pilot study. Australasian journal on ageing, 34(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12099

Chu, L., Chen, H. W., Cheng, P. Y., Ho, P., Weng, I. T., Yang, P. L., Chien, S. E., Tu, Y. C., Yang, C. C., Wang, T. M., Fung, H. H., & Yeh, S. L. (2019). Identifying Features that Enhance Older Adults’ Acceptance of Robots: A Mixed Methods Study. Gerontology, 65(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494881

Enmarker, I., Hellzén, O., Ekker, K., & Berg, A. G. (2015). Depression in older cat and dog owners: the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT)-3. Aging & mental health, 19(4), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.933310

Fox, M., & Ray, M. (2019). No pets allowed? Companion animals, older people and residential care. Medical humanities, 45(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2019-011651

Friedmann, E., Gee, N. R., Simonsick, E. M., Studenski, S., Resnick, B., Barr, E., Kitner-Triolo, M., & Hackney, A. (2020). Pet Ownership Patterns and Successful Aging Outcomes in Community Dwelling Older Adults. Frontiers in veterinary science, 7, 293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00293

Gustafsson, C., Svanberg, C., & Müllersdorf, M. (2015). Using a Robotic Cat in Dementia Care: A Pilot Study. Journal of gerontological nursing, 41(10), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20150806-44

Hudson, J., Ungar, R., Albright, L., Tkatch, R., Schaeffer, J., & Wicker, E. R. (2020). Robotic Pet Use Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences, 75(9), 2018–2028. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa119

MacDonald, J. M., & Barrett, D. (2016). Companion animals and well-being in palliative care nursing: a literature review. Journal of clinical nursing, 25(3-4), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13022

McGlynn, S. A., Kemple, S. C., Mitzner, T. L., King, C. H., & Rogers, W. A. (2014). Understanding Older Adults’ Perceptions of Usefulness for the Paro Robot. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society … Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1914–1918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581400

Preuß, D., & Legal, F. (2017). Living with the animals: animal or robotic companions for the elderly in smart homes?. Journal of medical ethics, 43(6), 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103603

Robinson, H., MacDonald, B. A., Kerse, N., & Broadbent, E. (2013). Suitability of healthcare robots for a dementia unit and suggested improvements. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 14(1), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.09.006

Scheibeck, R., Pallauf, M., Stellwag, C., & Seeberger, S. (2011). Elderly people in many respects benefit from interaction with dogs. European journal of medical research, 16(12), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-783x-16-12-557

Schmitz, A., Beermann, M., MacKenzie, C. R., Fetz, K., & Schulz-Quach, C. (2017). Animal-assisted therapy at a University Centre for Palliative Medicine – a qualitative content analysis of patient records. BMC palliative care, 16(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0230-z

Stanley, I. H., Conwell, Y., Bowen, C., & Van Orden, K. A. (2014). Pet ownership may attenuate loneliness among older adult primary care patients who live alone. Aging & mental health, 18(3), 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.837147

Thodberg, K., Sørensen, L. U., Christensen, J. W., Poulsen, P. H., Houbak, B., Damgaard, V., Keseler, I., Edwards, D., & Videbech, P. B. (2016). Therapeutic effects of dog visits in nursing homes for the elderly. Psychogeriatrics: the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society, 16(5), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12159