Robotic Dog Case Study

I am wondering why the residents were not allowed to keep the robotic dog, and if the study did more harm than good. The residents who received the treatment were statically significant, and they were less isoslated after the treatment. What happened after the study? The control group residents grew more isolated. I would have done this differently. I would have written or communicated with the Hasbro or Sony Company asking for the contribution of the robotic pets or a discount. I would have left the robotic animals with the residents, and I would offered my findings to the company in return, in case there was room for improvement.
Article 2: The outcomes were actually constructive; consequently, the participants enjoyed the artificial intelligence
What are some similarities/differences that you notice regarding the conclusions reached about the results of these studies?
6. What limitations/concerns did the researchers note regarding their studies?
Article 1: Banks, et al, (2008) linked robotic-animal therapy and animal-supported therapy to improved health and less isolation among the residents. The health care providers were doubtful to interrelate with the robotics-assisted therapy animals; however the therapeutic value outweighed the apprehensions that they had at first (Banks, et al, 2008). A robotic animal does not have to be nourished, bathed, and the only responsibility are batteries, thus making it a satisfactory substitution for a breathing animal (Banks, et al, 2008).
Article 2: The research established that communicating robotic dogs are beneficial in diminishing seclusion in assistive care individuals, and they became emotionally involved to both the robotic dog and breathing dog (Leong & Johnston, 2016).
Article 3: There has been no documentation on whether the reimbursements overshadow the expense of nourishing and taking care of an animal; nevertheless, countless reports refer to participant’s individual optimistic outlooks towards animals (Cherniack & Cherniack,
Article 4: In Japan, the price for caring for an individual with dementia is about $33,000 American dollars, and their estimated life expectancy is 8 years (Kimura et al, 2008). I do not see out government caring about anyone but the top 1%.
Article 5: Random measured research with greater sample amounts, with diverse peoples in diverse living situations, and with not the same intellectual aptitudes should be piloted to control which robotic companion is best for what population (Broadbent et al, 2013).
Synthesis: what themes are emerging? What are some similarities/differences that you notice regarding the recommended further research presented in these studies?
I would have done this differently. I would have written or communicated with the Hasbro or Sony Company asking for the contribution of the robotic pets or a discount. I would have left the robotic animals with the residents, and I would offered my findings to the company in return, in case there was room for improvement. I do not contemplate that that I could afford Paro the robotic seal, nonetheless the seal is a wonderful companion accessible to the Japanese in their universal healthcare. It must be nice to be so civilized with your elderly