Loneliness Reduction with Social Robot Companionship in Eldercare Facilities: Implementation Study

Authors

  • Jane N. Onyango Department of Psychiatry, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Nairobi County, Kenya Author

Keywords:

Social Robotics, Eldercare Facilities, Loneliness Mitigation, Implementation Science, Loneliness Reduction

Abstract

Loneliness and social isolation among older adults in residential care facilities constitute a growing public health crisis, exacerbated by demographic shifts and systemic workforce shortages in long-term care sectors. Socially assistive robots (SARs) have emerged as a promising technological intervention to provide companionship, cognitive stimulation, and social facilitation. While preliminary pilot studies suggest positive trends, robust implementation evidence regarding their longitudinal efficacy and integration into clinical workflows remains sparse. This study investigates the impact of social robot companionship on loneliness reduction in long-term eldercare facilities using a mixed-methods, multi-center implementation science framework. Over a six-month period, interactive biomimetic animal robots and humanoid conversational assistants were deployed in residential units. Quantitative assessments utilizing the UCLA Loneliness Scale and physiological measures of stress were paired with qualitative thematic analysis of resident and staff interviews. The results indicate statistically significant reductions in subjective loneliness and depressive symptoms, alongside improvements in social interaction frequency among residents. However, the outcomes varied significantly depending on the robotic platform, individual cognitive profiles, and institutional support structures. This paper discusses these findings, highlights key implementation barriers, addresses ethical concerns regarding machine-mediated companionship, and provides actionable recommendations for clinical practice and policy.

References

1. Tanas, Y.; Gasper, G.; Tanas, J.; Swed, S.; De Sario Velasquez, G. Comparative Outcomes of Human Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Framework. Syst. Rev. 2025, 14, 157.

2. Geurts, L.S.; Cooke, J.R.H.; van Bergen, R.S.; Jehee, J.F.M. Subjective confidence reflects representation of Bayesian probability in cortex. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 294–305.

3. Schoberleitner, I.; Augustin, A.; Egle, D.; Brunner, C.; Amort, B.; Zelger, B.; Brunner, A.; Wolfram, D. Is It All about Surface Topography? An Intra-Individual Clinical Outcome Analysis of Two Different Implant Surfaces in Breast Reconstruction. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1315.

4. Polasek, T.M.; Tucker, G.T.; Sorich, M.J.; Wiese, M.D.; Mohan, T.; Rostami-Hodjegan, A.; Korprasertthaworn, P.; Perera, V.; Rowland, A. Prediction of olanzapine exposure in individual patients using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling and simulation. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 84, 462–476.

5. Liu, P.; Song, Y.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Li, Z. Efficacy of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Reducing Capsular Contracture in Prosthesis-Based Breast Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Updat. Surg. 2024, 76, 1183–1194.

6. Brouwer, K.L.; Aleksunes, L.M.; Brandys, B.; Giacoia, G.P.; Knipp, G.; Lukacova, V.; Meibohm, B.; Nigam, S.K.; Rieder, M.; de Wildt, S.N. Human Ontogeny of Drug Transporters: Review and Recommendations of the Pediatric Transporter Working Group. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015, 98, 266–287.

7. Al-Ghazal, S.; Sully, L.; Fallowfield, L.; Blamey, R. The Psychological Impact of Immediate Rather than Delayed Breast Reconstruction. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. EJSO 2000, 26, 17–19.

8. Lee, J.J.; Chu, C.T. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat. Med. 2012, 31, 2955–2972.

9. Dmitrienko, A.; D’Agostino, R.B.; Huque, M.F. Key multiplicity issues in clinical drug development. Stat. Med. 2013, 32, 1079–1111.

10. Emoto, C.; Hahn, D.; Euteneuer, J.C.; Mizuno, T.; Vinks, A.A.; Fukuda, T. Next Challenge From the Variance in Individual Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model-Predicted to Observed Morphine Concentration in Critically Ill Neonates. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 107, 319–320.

11. Kantasiripitak, W.; Van Daele, R.; Gijsen, M.; Ferrante, M.; Spriet, I.; Dreesen, E. Software Tools for Model-Informed Precision Dosing: How Well Do They Satisfy the Needs? Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 620.

12. Edgerton, M.T.; McCLARY, A.R. Augmentation Mammaplasty; Psychiatric Implications and Surgical Indications; (with Special Reference to Use of the Polyvinyl Alcohol Sponge Ivalon). Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Transplant. Bull. 1958, 21, 279–305.

13. Ernstmeyer, K.; Christman, E. Nursing Pharmacology, 2nd ed.; Chippewa Valley Technical College: Eau Claire, WI, USA, 2023.

14. Berry, D.A. Interim Analysis in Clinical Trials: The Role of the Likelihood Principle. Am. Stat. 1987, 41, 117–122.

15. Schoberleitner, I.; Lackner, M.; Coraça-Huber, D.C.; Augustin, A.; Imsirovic, A.; Sigl, S.; Wolfram, D. SMI-Capsular Fibrosis and Biofilm Dynamics: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Implications, and Antimicrobial Approaches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11675.

16. Abduljalil, K.; Gardner, I.; Jamei, M. Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Delineate the Impact of Aging and Renal Impairment on Ceftazidime Clearance. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 862.

17. Berthiaume Fox, K.A.; Galvin, E.R.; Kness-Knezinskis, E.; Hostler, A.C.; Chen, K.; Gurtner, G.C. Decoding Wound Healing: Cellular Insights and Technological Advances. Npj Biomed. Innov. 2026, 3, 1.

18. Necchi, S.; Molina, D.; Turri, S.; Rossetto, F.; Rietjens, M.; Pennati, G. Failure of Silicone Gel Breast Implants: Is the Mechanical Weakening Due to Shell Swelling a Significant Cause of Prostheses Rupture? J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2011, 4, 2002–2008.

19. Tellarini, A.; Garutti, L.; Corno, M.; Tamborini, F.; Paganini, F.; Fasoli, V.; Di Giovanna, D.; Valdatta, L. Immediate Post-Mastectomy Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction with Animal Derived Acellular Dermal Matrices: A Systematic Review. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthetic Surg. JPRAS 2023, 86, 94–108.

20. Vogt, P.M.; Mackowski, M.S.; Dastagir, K. Implant-Based Multiplane Breast Augmentation—A Personal Surgical Concept for Dynamic Implant–Tissue Interaction Providing Sustainable Shape Stability. Eur. J. Plast. Surg. 2021, 44, 609–623.

21. Quality of Life and Satisfaction after Breast Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Breast-Q Patient-Reported Outcomes—Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. Available online: https://www.jprasurg.com/article/S1748-6815(24)00351-6/fulltext (accessed on 7 March 2026).

22. Yadav, K.; Lewis, R.J. Gatekeeping Strategies for Avoiding False-Positive Results in Clinical Trials With Many Comparisons. JAMA 2017, 318, 1385–1386.

23. Góes, J.C.S.; Landecker, A. Optimizing Outcomes in Breast Augmentation: Seven Years of Experience with the Subfascial Plane. Aesthetic Plast. Surg. 2003, 27, 178–184.

24. Krauss, M.; Tappe, K.; Schuppert, A.; Kuepfer, L.; Goerlitz, L. Bayesian Population Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Approach for a Physiologically Realistic Characterization of Interindividual Variability in Clinically Relevant Populations. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139423.

25. Prasad, K.; Rifai, A.; Recek, N.; Schuessler, D.; Levchenko, I.; Murdock, A.; Mozetič, M.; Fox, K.; Alexander, K. Nanocarbon-Polymer Composites for Next-Generation Breast Implant Materials. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2024, 16, 50251–50266.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-26

Issue

Section

Articles