The effects of a sleep robot intervention on sleep, depression and anxiety in adults with insomnia - Study protocol of a randomized waitlist-controlled trial

Mind, Body and Machine: Preliminary Study to Explore Predictors of Treatment Response After a Sleep Robot Intervention for Adults with Insomnia

Introduction

The study aimed to explore characteristics of responders to a sleep robot intervention for adults with insomnia, and the likelihood that participants responded to the intervention.

Methods

Data from the intervention and the control group in a randomized waitlist-controlled trial (n = 44) were pooled together after both had undergone the intervention. A repeated measures ANOVA and Friedman tests were used to explore changes over time. Differences in baseline characteristics between responders (n = 13), defined as a reduction of -5 on the Insomnia Severity Index from pre- to post-intervention, and non-responders (n = 31) were analyzed with t-tests and chi-square tests. Finally, logistic regression models were estimated.

Results

Baseline anxiety was the only statistically significant difference between responders and non-responders (p = 0.03). A logistic regression model with anxiety and sleep quality as predictors was statistically significant, correctly classifying 83.3% of cases.

Discussion

The results imply that people with lower anxiety and higher sleep quality at baseline are more likely to report clinically significant improvements in insomnia from the sleep robot intervention.

The effects of a sleep robot intervention on sleep, depression and anxiety in adults with insomnia—A randomized waitlist‐controlled trial

The study objective was to assess if a 3-week intervention with the Somnox sleep robot had effects on symptoms of insomnia, somatic arousal, and/or concurrent symptoms of depression and anxiety in adults with insomnia, compared with a waitlist-control group. The participants (n = 44) were randomized to a 3-week intervention with the sleep robot (n = 22), or to a waitlist-control group (n = 22). The primary outcome measure was the Insomnia Severity Index administered at baseline, mid-intervention, post-intervention and at 1-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the Pre-Sleep Arousal Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Additionally, sleep-onset latency, wake time after sleep onset, total sleep time and sleep efficiency were measured the week prior to and the last week of the intervention, both subjectively with the Consensus Sleep Diary and objectively with wrist actigraphy. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse data. The effect of the sleep robot on the participants' insomnia severity was not statistically significant. The differences between the intervention group and the control group on the measures of arousal, anxiety and depression were also not statistically significant, and neither were the sleep diary and actigraphy variables. In conclusion, a 3-week intervention with daily at-home use of the robot was not found to be an effective method to relieve the symptom burden in adults with insomnia.

The effect of robot interventions on sleep in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Robotic pets or companion robots have demonstrated positive effects on several emotional and physiological factors in humans. Robots could constitute a complementary or alternative method to treat sleep problems, but individual studies on robots' effectiveness regarding sleep show mixed results. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of robots, plush toys, and treatment as usual on sleep in adults.

METHODS

The current study is a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of all randomized and cluster randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of robots, plush toys, and treatment as usual on total sleep time in adults.

RESULTS

Four studies were included in the analysis. Three studies were considered to have a high risk of bias, whereas one was rated with some concerns. The studies comprised 381 participants. These subjects were older adults, with or without dementia, living in nursing homes. The total sleep time was the only common sleep measure included in all four studies. The network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the three experimental groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The robot interventions were not found to have positive effects on total sleep time in older adults compared with plush toys or treatment as usual. Future studies should use robots especially made to target sleep, include a thorough screening of the participants, and exclude people with adequate sleep, select appropriate sleep measures, and report the results appropriately for future meta-analyses.