Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socially Assistive Robots as Mental Health Interventions for Children: A Scoping Review

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Socially Assistive Robots are promising in their potential to promote and support mental health in children. There is a growing number of studies investigating the feasibility and effectiveness of robot interventions in supporting children’s mental wellbeing. Although preliminary evidence suggests that Socially Assistive Robots may have the potential to help address concerns such as stress and anxiety in children, there is a need for a greater focus in examining the impact of robotic interventions in this population. In order to better understand the current state of the evidence in this field and identify critical gaps, we carried out a scoping review of the available literature examining how social robots are investigated as means to support mental health in children. We identified existing types of robot intervention and measures that are being used to investigate specific mental health outcomes. Overall, our findings suggest that robot interventions for children may positively impact mental health outcomes such as relief of distress and increase positive affect. Results also show that the strength of evidence needs to be improved to determine what types of robotic interventions could be most effective and readily implemented in pediatric mental health care. Based on our findings, we propose a set of recommendations to guide further research in this area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO | Mental health: a state of well-being. In: WHO. https://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/. Accessed 20 Mar 2019

  2. Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC et al (2007) Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry 6:168–176

    Google Scholar 

  3. DeSocio J, Hootman J (2004) Children’s mental health and school success. J Sch Nurs 20:189–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM, Beautrais AL (2005) Subthreshold depression in adolescence and mental health outcomes in adulthood. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Galderisi S, Heinz A, Kastrup M, Beezhold J, Sartorius N (2015) Toward a new definition of mental health. World Psychiatry 14:231–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riek LD (2016) Chapter 8—Robotics Technology in Mental Health Care. In: Luxton DD (ed) Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 185–203

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA (2015) Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chavira DA, Stein MB, Bailey K, Stein MT (2004) Child anxiety in primary care: prevalent but untreated. Depress Anxiety 20:155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kataoka SH, Zhang L, Wells KB (2002) Unmet need for Mental Health Care among U.S. children: variation by ethnicity and insurance status. AJP 159:1548–1555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reardon T, Harvey K, Baranowska M, O’Brien D, Smith L, Creswell C (2017) What do parents perceive are the barriers and facilitators to accessing psychological treatment for mental health problems in children and adolescents? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 26:623–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kieling C, Baker-Henningham H, Belfer M, Conti G, Ertem I, Omigbodun O, Rohde LA, Srinath S, Ulkuer N, Rahman A (2011) Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: evidence for action. Lancet 378:1515–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Administration SA and MHS (2016) DSM-5 Child Mental Disorder Classification. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US)

  13. Ishikawa S, Okajima I, Matsuoka H, Sakano Y (2007) Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Child Adolesc Mental Health 12:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gulliver A, Griffiths KM, Christensen H (2010) Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 10:113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stagman SM, Cooper JL (2010) Children’s mental health: what every policymaker should know. https://doi.org/10.7916/D88D050Q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bennett CC, Sabanovic S, Piatt JA, Nagata S, Eldridge L, Randall N (2017) A robot a day keeps the blues away. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on healthcare informatics (ICHI). pp 536–540

  17. Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N, Broadbent E (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14:661–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pu L, Moyle W, Jones C, Todorovic M (2019) The effectiveness of social robots for older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Gerontologist 59:e37–e51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jibb LA, Birnie KA, Nathan PC, Beran TN, Hum V, Victor JC, Stinson JN (2018) Using the MEDiPORT humanoid robot to reduce procedural pain and distress in children with cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer 65:e27242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pulido JC, González JC, Suárez-Mejías C, Bandera A, Bustos P, Fernández F (2017) Evaluating the child–robot interaction of the NAO therapist platform in pediatric rehabilitation. Int J Soc Robot 9:343–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Martí Carrillo F, Butchart J, Knight S, Scheinberg A, Wise L, Sterling L, McCarthy C (2018) Adapting a general-purpose social robot for paediatric rehabilitation through in situ design. ACM Trans Hum Robot Interact 7:12:1–12:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Díaz M, Nuño N, Sàez-Pons J, Pardo D, Angulo C, Andrés A (2011) Building up child–robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: from initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. IEEE 2011:927–932

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dawe J, Sutherland C, Barco A, Broadbent E (2019) Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? A scoping review. BMJ Paediatr Open 3:e000371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Csala E, Németh G, Zainkó C (2012) Application of the NAO humanoid robot in the treatment of marrow-transplanted children. In: 2012 IEEE 3rd international conference on cognitive infocommunications (CogInfoCom), pp 655–659

  25. Srinivasan SM, Park IK, Neelly LB, Bhat AN (2015) A comparison of the effects of rhythm and robotic interventions on repetitive behaviors and affective states of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Res Autism Spectr Disord 18:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Costescu CA, Vanderborght B, David DO (2017) Robot-enhanced CBT for dysfunctional emotions in social situations for children with ASD. J Evid Based Psychother 17:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pennisi P, Tonacci A, Tartarisco G, Billeci L, Ruta L, Gangemi S, Pioggia G (2016) Autism and social robotics: a systematic review. Autism Res 9:165–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Begum M, Serna RW, Yanco HA (2016) Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive review. Int J Soc Robot 8:157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kwan B, Rickwood DJ (2015) A systematic review of mental health outcome measures for young people aged 12 to 25 years. BMC Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0664-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ismail LI, Verhoeven T, Dambre J, Wyffels F (2019) Leveraging robotics research for children with Autism: a review. Int J Soc Robot 11:389–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cook AM, Polgar JM (2015) Chapter 1—Principles of assistive technology: introducing the human activity assistive technology model. In: Cook AM, Polgar JM (eds) Assistive technologies, 4th edn. Mosby, St. Louis (MO), pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  32. Giesbrecht E (2013) Application of the human activity assistive technology model for occupational therapy research. Aust Occup Ther J 60:230–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Daudt HM, van Mossel C, Scott SJ (2013) Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA (2014) A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 5:371–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Baxter P, Kennedy J, Senft E, Lemaignan S, Belpaeme T (2016) From characterising three years of HRI to methodology and reporting recommendations. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI), pp 391–398

  37. Programmable Humanoïd Robot NAO V6. https://www.generationrobots.com/en/403100-programmable-humanoid-robot-nao-v6.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2019

  38. PARO Therapeutic Robot. http://www.parorobots.com/. Accessed 2 Apr 2019

  39. Jeong S, Breazeal C, Logan D, Weinstock P (2018) Huggable: the impact of embodiment on promoting socio-emotional interactions for young pediatric inpatients. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 495:1–495:13

  40. Jeong S, Logan DE, Goodwin MS, et al (2015) A social robot to mitigate stress, anxiety, and pain in hospital pediatric care. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts. ACM, New York, pp 103–104

  41. Tega. Personal Robots Group. https://robotic.media.mit.edu/portfolio/tega/ Accessed 2 Apr 2019

  42. PLEOworld. https://www.pleoworld.com/pleo_rb/eng/lifeform.php. Accessed 2 Apr 2019

  43. Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S (2015) Humanoid robotics in health care: an exploration of children’s and parents’ emotional reactions. J Health Psychol 20:984–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ali S, Sivakumar M, Beran T, Scott SD, Vandermeer B, Curtis S, Jou H, Hartling L (2018) Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of humanoid robot-based distraction for venipuncture pain in children. BMJ Open 8:e023366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Crossman MK, Kazdin AE, Kitt ER (2018) The influence of a socially assistive robot on mood, anxiety, and arousal in children. Prof Psychol Res Pract 49:48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Okita SY (2013) Self-other’s perspective taking: the use of therapeutic robot companions as social agents for reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Cyberpsychol Behavior Social Netw 16:436–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Logan DE, Breazeal C, Goodwin MS, Jeong S, O’Connell B, Smith-Freedman D, Heathers J, Weinstock P (2019) Social robots for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nakadoi Y (2017) Usefulness of animal type robot assisted therapy for autism spectrum disorder in the child and adolescent psychiatric ward. In: Otake M, Kurahashi S, Ota Y, Satoh K, Bekki D (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Cham, pp 478–482

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Ullrich D, Diefenbach S, Butz A (2016) Murphy miserable robot: a companion to support children’s well-being in emotionally difficult situations. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 3234–3240

  50. Park HW, Rosenberg-Kima R, Rosenberg M, Gordon G, Breazeal C (2017) Growing growth mindset with a social robot peer. ACM, pp 137–145

  51. Eind R, Heerink M (2018) Evaluation of the use of a Pleo robot at a child consultation clinic. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on social robots in therapy and education. Panama, pp 41–43

  52. Farrier CE, Pearson JDR, Beran TN (2019) Children’s fear and pain during medical procedures: a quality improvement study with a humanoid robot. Can J Nurs Res 2019:844562119862742 Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres

    Google Scholar 

  53. Alemi M, Ghanbarzadeh A, Meghdari A, Moghadam LJ (2016) Clinical application of a humanoid robot in pediatric cancer interventions. Int J Soc Robot 8:743–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghanbarzadeh A, Moghadam LJ, Ghanbarzadeh A (2014) Impact of a social humanoid robot as a therapy assistant in children cancer treatment. In: Beetz M, Johnston B, Williams M-A (eds) Social robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 11–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Vanderkooi OG, Kuhn S (2013) Reducing children’s pain and distress towards flu vaccinations: a novel and effective application of humanoid robotics. Vaccine 31:2772–2777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Trost MJ, Ford AR, Kysh L, Gold JI, Matarić M (2019) Socially assistive robots for helping pediatric distress and pain: a review of current evidence and recommendations for future research and practice. Clin J Pain 35:451–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bartneck C, Suzuki T, Kanda T, Nomura T (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI Soc 21:217–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shibata T, Wada K, Ikeda Y, Sabanovic S (2009) Cross-cultural studies on subjective evaluation of a seal robot. Adv Robot 23:443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. de Graaf MMA, Ben Allouch S (2013) Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robot Auton Syst 61:1476–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shahid S, Krahmer E, Swerts M (2014) Child–robot interaction across cultures: how does playing a game with a social robot compare to playing a game alone or with a friend? Comput Hum Behav 40:86–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. American Psychological Association (2006) Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol 61:271–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Scholten TS, Vissenberg C, Heerink M (2016) Hygiene and the use of robotic animals in hospitals: a review of the literature. Int J Soc Robot 8:499–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6:329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Costescu CA, David DO (2014) Attitudes toward Using Social Robots in Psychotherapy. Transylv J Psychol 15:3–20

    Google Scholar 

  65. Costescu CA, Vanderborght B, David DO (2014) The effects of robot-enhanced psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. Rev Gen Psychol 18:127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nezu AM, Nezu CM (2007) Evidence-based outcome research: a practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Mohr DC, Spring B, Freedland KE, Beckner V, Arean P, Hollon SD, Ockene J, Kaplan R (2009) The selection and design of control conditions for randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions. PPS 78:275–284

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kyriakidou M, Padda K, Parry L (2017) Reporting robot ethics for children-robot studies in contemporary peer reviewed papers. In: Aldinhas Ferreira MI, Silva Sequeira J, Tokhi MO, Kadar EE, Virk GS (eds) A world with robots: international conference on robot ethics: ICRE 2015. Springer, Cham, pp 109–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Cameron D, Fernando S, Collins EC, Millings A, Szollosy M, Moore R, Sharkey A, Prescott T (2017) You made him be alive: children’s perceptions of animacy in a humanoid robot. In: Mangan M, Cutkosky M, Mura A, Verschure PFMJ, Prescott T, Lepora N (eds) Biomimetic and biohybrid systems. Springer, Cham, pp 73–85

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  70. Feil-Seifer D, Matarić MJ (2009) Toward Socially Assistive Robotics for Augmenting Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. In: Khatib O, Kumar V, Pappas GJ (eds) Experimental Robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–210

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  71. Kozima H, Nakagawa C, Yasuda Y (2005) Interactive robots for communication-care: a case-study in autism therapy. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2005, pp 341–346

  72. Huijnen CAGJ, Lexis MAS, Jansens R, de Witte LP (2019) Roles, strengths and challenges of using robots in interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). J Autism Dev Disord 49:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Cabibihan J-J, Javed H, Ang M, Aljunied SM (2013) Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. Int J Soc Robot 5:593–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Dorr D (1981) Factor structure of the state-trait anxiety inventory for children. Personal Individ Differ 2:113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Smucker MR, Craighead WE, Craighead LW, Green BJ (1986) Normative and reliability data for the children’s depression inventory. J Abnorm Child Psychol 14:25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kahn PH Jr, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S (2012) “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48:303–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Kahn PH, Reichert AL, Gary HE, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Shen S, Ruckert JH, Gill B (2011) The new ontological category hypothesis in human-robot interaction. In: 2011 6th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 159–160

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by AGE-WELL NCE Inc. and the BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. We are grateful to Colleen Pawliuk for her assistance in refining our search strategy and to Gabrielle Sunderland and Kalina Nowaczek for commitment of time and effort during article screening.

Funding

This study was funded by the BC Children’s Hospital Foundation and by AGE-WELL NCE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, B402 Shaughnessy, 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3N1, Canada

    Katarzyna Kabacińska & Julie M. Robillard

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Tony J. Prescott

  3. BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Julie M. Robillard

Authors
  1. Katarzyna Kabacińska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tony J. Prescott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie M. Robillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie M. Robillard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Review flow chart

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kabacińska, K., Prescott, T.J. & Robillard, J.M. Socially Assistive Robots as Mental Health Interventions for Children: A Scoping Review. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 919–935 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00679-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00679-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation