To test the effects of individual, nonfacilitated sessions with PARO (version 9), when compared against a look-alike plush toy and usual care, on the emotional and behavioral symptoms of dementia for people living in long-term care facilities. Parallel, 3-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted between June 14, 2014, and May 16, 2015. Twenty-eight long-term care facilities operated by 20 care organizations located in South-East Queensland, Australia. Four hundred fifteen participants aged ≥60 years, with a documented diagnosis of dementia. Stratified by private/not-for-profit status and randomized using a computer-generated sequence, 9 facilities were randomized to the PARO group (individual, nonfacilitated, 15-minute sessions 3 times per week for 10 weeks); 10 to plush toy (same, but given PARO with robotic features disabled); and 9 to usual care. Treatment allocation was masked to assessors. Primary outcomes were changes in levels of engagement, mood states, and agitation after a 10-week intervention, assessed by coded video observations (baseline, weeks 1, 5, 10, and 15) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (baseline, weeks 10 and 15). Analyses followed intention-to-treat, using repeated measures mixed effects models. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673). Video data showed that participants in the PARO group were more verbally [3.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.40-0.81, P = .011] and visually engaged (13.06, 95% CI: 17.05-9.06, P < .0001) than participants in plush toy. Both PARO (-3.09, 95% CI: -0.45 to -5.72, P = .022) and plush toy (-3.58, 95% CI: -1.26 to -5.91, P = .002) had significantly greater reduced neutral affect compared with usual care, whilst PARO was more effective than usual care in improving pleasure (1.12, 95% CI: 1.94-0.29, P = .008). Videos showed that PARO was more effective than usual care in improving agitation (3.33, 95% CI: 5.79-0.86, P = .008). When measured using the CMAI-SF, there was no difference between groups. Although more effective than usual care in improving mood states and agitation, PARO was only more effective than a plush toy in encouraging engagement.

Maintenance of communication is important for people with dementia living in long-term care. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of using “Giraff”, a telepresence robot to enhance engagement between family and a person with dementia living in long-term care.

The robotic seal, PARO, has been used as an alternative to animal-assisted therapies with residents with dementia in long-term care, yet understanding of its efficacy is limited by a paucity of research. We explored the effects of PARO on motor activity and sleep patterns, as measured by a wearable triaxial accelerometer. Cluster-randomised controlled trial, involving 28 facilities in Queensland, Australia. Nine facilities were randomised to the PARO group (individual, non-facilitated, 15-min sessions three afternoons per week for 10 weeks), 10 to a plush toy (PARO with robotic features disabled) and nine to usual care. Changes in day- and nighttime motor activity and sleep after the 10-week intervention, as measured by SenseWear® armbands, worn by participants continuously for 24 h at baseline, during two single intervention days in weeks 5 and 10 respectively, and post-intervention (week 15). Analyses followed intention-to-treat, using repeated-measures mixed-effects models. After 10 weeks, the PARO group showed a greater reduction in daytime step count than usual care (p = 0.023), and in nighttime step count (p = 0.028) and daytime physical activity (p = 0.026) compared with the plush toy group. At post-intervention, the PARO group showed a greater reduction in daytime step count than the plush toy group (p = 0.028), and at nighttime compared with both the plush toy group (p = 0.019) and the usual-care group (p = 0.046). The PARO group also had a greater reduction in nighttime physical activity than the usual-care group (p = 0.015). PARO may have some effect on motor activity of older people with dementia in long-term care, but not on sleep patterns. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000508673).

Objective: Two small studies have suggested that family carers of people with dementia may be a high-risk group for suicide. The objective of this study was to further explore the rate of suicidal ideation in a large sample of carers and identify psychosocial risk and protective factors. Method: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 566 family carers. The survey included measures of suicidality, self-efficacy, physical health, depression, anxiety, hopelessness, optimism, burden, coping strategies, and social support. Results: Sixteen percent of carers had contemplated suicide more than once in the previous year. There were univariate differences between suicidal and non-suicidal carers on self-efficacy, social support, coping, burden, depression, anxiety, hopelessness, optimism, reasons for living, and symptoms of dementia, as well as age and income management. In a multivariate model, age, depression, and reasons for living predicted suicidal ideation. In tests for mediation, satisfaction with social support and dysfunctional coping had indirect effects on suicidal ideation via depression. Conclusion: Family carers of people with dementia have high rates of suicidal ideation, with depression a risk factor and increasing age and reasons for living as protective factors. Depression and reasons for living should be targeted in interventions to reduce suicide risk in dementia carers.