Original study
Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes: Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2007.11.007Get rights and content

Loneliness is a common problem in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and previous work has shown that animal-assisted therapy (AAT) can to some degree reverse loneliness. Here, we compared the ability of a living dog (Dog) and a robotic dog (AIBO) to treat loneliness in elderly patients living in LTCF. In comparison with a control group not receiving AAT, both the Dog and AIBO groups had statistically significant improvements in their levels of loneliness. As measured by a modified Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (MLAPS), residents showed high levels of attachment to both the dog and AIBO. Subscale analysis showed that the AIBO group scored lower than the living dog on “animal rights/animal welfare” but not on “general attachment” or “people substituting.” However, MLAPS measures did not correlate with changes in loneliness, showing that attachment was not the mechanism by which AAT decreases loneliness. We conclude that interactive robotic dogs can reduce loneliness in residents of LTCF and that residents become attached to these robots. However, level of attachment does not explain the decrease in loneliness associated with AAT conducted with either a living or robotic dog.

Section snippets

Methods

Residents were interviewed at 3 LTCF in St. Louis, MO. Studies were approved by the IRB at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Residents were excluded if they scored less than 24 on the the modified mini-mental status exam,19 had allergies to dogs or cats, scored less than 30 on the UCLA loneliness scale, or had a known history of psychiatric disease or Alzheimer’s disease. Recruited individuals were randomized to a group that received no AAT (Control) or to groups that received AAT with

Results

There were no statistical differences among the pretest UCLA loneliness scale scores for the Control (n = 13), AIBO (n = 12), or Dog (n = 13) groups. The mean loneliness score was 45.9 ± 1.16 (n = 38). The delta loneliness scores are shown in Figure 2. ANOVA showed a statistical difference among the groups (F(2, 35) = 37.3, P < .01). Newman-Keuls posttest showed that the Control group (n = 13) was statistically different from the AIBO (P < .05, n = 12) and the Dog (P < .05, n = 13) group, but

Discussion

We found here that elderly residents living in long-term care facilities who received scheduled AAT with either a living or robotic dog were significantly less lonely than those who did not receive AAT (Figure 2). We found no difference between the effectiveness of a living and robotic dog in reducing loneliness. As in a previous study,8 we found a correlation between pretest and posttest loneliness scores and between pretest and delta loneliness, indicating that those who were most lonely

References (19)

  • V.L. Voith

    Attachment of people to companion animals

    Vet Clin North Am

    (1985)
  • M.F. Folstein et al.

    Mini-Mental State: A practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician

    J Psychiatr Res

    (1975)
  • D.W. Russell et al.

    Loneliness and nursing home admission among rural older adults

    Psychol Aging

    (1997)
  • L.A. Peplau et al.

    Loneliness: A source book of current theory, research and theory

    (1982)
  • K. Holmen et al.

    Loneliness among elderly people living in Stockholm: A population study

    J Adv Nurs

    (1992)
  • M. Paunonen et al.

    Life situation of aged home-nursing clients

    J Community Health Nurs

    (1990)
  • D.W. Russel

    UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure

    J Personality Assessment

    (1996)
  • J. Goldmeier

    Pets or people: Another research note

    Gerontologist

    (1986)
  • M.M. Calvert

    Human-pet interaction and loneliness: A test of concepts from Roy’s adaptation model

    Nurs Sci Q

    (1989)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (372)

View all citing articles on Scopus

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this article.

View full text