The cost-effectiveness of using PARO, a therapeutic robotic seal, to reduce agitation and medication use in dementia: Findings from a cluster–randomized controlled trial

Merehau C. Mervin, Wendy Moyle, Cindy Jones, Jenny Murfield, Brian Draper, Elizabeth Beattie, David H.K. Shum, Siobhan O'Dwyer, Lukman Thalib

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. Design: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster–randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. Participants: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. Intervention: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. Measurements: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory–Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). Results: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. Conclusion: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)619-622.e1
JournalJournal of the American Medical Directors Association
Volume19
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Play and Playthings
Robotics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Dementia
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Queensland
Artificial Intelligence
Long-Term Care
New Zealand
Registries
Clinical Trials

Cite this

Mervin, Merehau C. ; Moyle, Wendy ; Jones, Cindy ; Murfield, Jenny ; Draper, Brian ; Beattie, Elizabeth ; Shum, David H.K. ; O'Dwyer, Siobhan ; Thalib, Lukman. / The cost-effectiveness of using PARO, a therapeutic robotic seal, to reduce agitation and medication use in dementia : Findings from a cluster–randomized controlled trial. In: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2018 ; Vol. 19, No. 7. pp. 619-622.e1.
@article{47fda174d3cb4e37be349feb950efdbb,
title = "The cost-effectiveness of using PARO, a therapeutic robotic seal, to reduce agitation and medication use in dementia: Findings from a cluster–randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Objectives: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. Design: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster–randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. Participants: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. Intervention: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. Measurements: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory–Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). Results: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. Conclusion: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.",
author = "Mervin, {Merehau C.} and Wendy Moyle and Cindy Jones and Jenny Murfield and Brian Draper and Elizabeth Beattie and Shum, {David H.K.} and Siobhan O'Dwyer and Lukman Thalib",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamda.2017.10.008",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "619--622.e1",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Directors Association",
issn = "1525-8610",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "7",

}

The cost-effectiveness of using PARO, a therapeutic robotic seal, to reduce agitation and medication use in dementia : Findings from a cluster–randomized controlled trial. / Mervin, Merehau C.; Moyle, Wendy; Jones, Cindy; Murfield, Jenny; Draper, Brian; Beattie, Elizabeth; Shum, David H.K.; O'Dwyer, Siobhan; Thalib, Lukman.

In: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, Vol. 19, No. 7, 01.07.2018, p. 619-622.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost-effectiveness of using PARO, a therapeutic robotic seal, to reduce agitation and medication use in dementia

T2 - Findings from a cluster–randomized controlled trial

AU - Mervin, Merehau C.

AU - Moyle, Wendy

AU - Jones, Cindy

AU - Murfield, Jenny

AU - Draper, Brian

AU - Beattie, Elizabeth

AU - Shum, David H.K.

AU - O'Dwyer, Siobhan

AU - Thalib, Lukman

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Objectives: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. Design: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster–randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. Participants: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. Intervention: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. Measurements: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory–Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). Results: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. Conclusion: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.

AB - Objectives: To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care. Design: An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster–randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia. Participants: A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia. Intervention: Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care. Measurements: The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory–Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW). Results: For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care. Conclusion: The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040102714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.10.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.10.008

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 619-622.e1

JO - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

JF - Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

SN - 1525-8610

IS - 7

ER -