Robots in Assisted Living Facilities: Scoping Review.
aging
elder
geriatric
gerontology
long-term care
nursing home
older adult
residential care
review method
robot
robotics
scoping review
senior living
Journal
JMIR aging
ISSN: 2561-7605
Titre abrégé: JMIR Aging
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101740387
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Mar 2023
06 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
12
09
2022
accepted:
24
01
2023
revised:
12
01
2023
entrez:
6
3
2023
pubmed:
7
3
2023
medline:
7
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Various technological interventions have been proposed and studied to address the growing demand for care of residents in assisted living facilities, in which a preexisting shortage of professional caregivers has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Care robots are one such intervention with the potential to improve both the care of older adults and the work life of their professional caregivers. However, concerns about efficacy, ethics, and best practices in the applications of robotic technologies in care settings remain. This scoping review aimed to examine the literature on robots used in assisted living facilities and identify gaps in the literature to guide future research. On February 12, 2022, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) protocol, we searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore digital library, and ACM Digital Library using predetermined search terms. Publications were included if they were written in English and focused on the use of robotics in assisted living facilities. Publications were excluded if they did not provide peer-reviewed empirical data, focused on user needs, or developed an instrument to study human-robot interaction. The study findings were then summarized, coded, and analyzed using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations framework. The final sample included 73 publications from 69 unique studies on the use of robots in assisted living facilities. The findings of studies on older adults were mixed, with some studies suggesting positive impacts of robots, some expressing concerns about robots and barriers to their use, and others being inconclusive. Although many therapeutic benefits of care robots have been identified, methodological limitations have weakened the internal and external validity of the findings of these studies. Few studies (18/69, 26%) considered the context of care: most studies (48/69, 70%) collected data only on recipients of care, 15 studies collected data on staff, and 3 studies collected data on relatives or visitors. Theory-driven, longitudinal, and large sample size study designs were rare. Across the authors' disciplines, a lack of consistency in methodological quality and reporting makes it difficult to synthesize and assess research on care robotics. The findings of this study call for more systematic research on the feasibility and efficacy of robots in assisted living facilities. In particular, there is a dearth of research on how robots may change geriatric care and the work environment within assisted living facilities. To maximize the benefits and minimize the consequences for older adults and caregivers, future research will require interdisciplinary collaboration among health sciences, computer science, and engineering as well as agreement on methodological standards.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Various technological interventions have been proposed and studied to address the growing demand for care of residents in assisted living facilities, in which a preexisting shortage of professional caregivers has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Care robots are one such intervention with the potential to improve both the care of older adults and the work life of their professional caregivers. However, concerns about efficacy, ethics, and best practices in the applications of robotic technologies in care settings remain.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to examine the literature on robots used in assisted living facilities and identify gaps in the literature to guide future research.
METHODS
METHODS
On February 12, 2022, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) protocol, we searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore digital library, and ACM Digital Library using predetermined search terms. Publications were included if they were written in English and focused on the use of robotics in assisted living facilities. Publications were excluded if they did not provide peer-reviewed empirical data, focused on user needs, or developed an instrument to study human-robot interaction. The study findings were then summarized, coded, and analyzed using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations framework.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The final sample included 73 publications from 69 unique studies on the use of robots in assisted living facilities. The findings of studies on older adults were mixed, with some studies suggesting positive impacts of robots, some expressing concerns about robots and barriers to their use, and others being inconclusive. Although many therapeutic benefits of care robots have been identified, methodological limitations have weakened the internal and external validity of the findings of these studies. Few studies (18/69, 26%) considered the context of care: most studies (48/69, 70%) collected data only on recipients of care, 15 studies collected data on staff, and 3 studies collected data on relatives or visitors. Theory-driven, longitudinal, and large sample size study designs were rare. Across the authors' disciplines, a lack of consistency in methodological quality and reporting makes it difficult to synthesize and assess research on care robotics.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study call for more systematic research on the feasibility and efficacy of robots in assisted living facilities. In particular, there is a dearth of research on how robots may change geriatric care and the work environment within assisted living facilities. To maximize the benefits and minimize the consequences for older adults and caregivers, future research will require interdisciplinary collaboration among health sciences, computer science, and engineering as well as agreement on methodological standards.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36877560
pii: v6i1e42652
doi: 10.2196/42652
pmc: PMC10028516
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e42652Informations de copyright
©Katie Trainum, Rachel Tunis, Bo Xie, Elliott Hauser. Originally published in JMIR Aging (https://aging.jmir.org), 06.03.2023.
Références
Work. 2021;68(1):21-26
pubmed: 33459684
Int Psychogeriatr. 2021 Oct;33(10):1045-1056
pubmed: 32985396
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650427
pubmed: 24187245
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018 Nov;50(6):653-665
pubmed: 30242796
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Nov 09;:1-13
pubmed: 34752177
Clin Gerontol. 2022 Jan-Feb;45(1):189-194
pubmed: 34351834
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Aug;21(8):1079-1085
pubmed: 32122797
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
Australas J Ageing. 2016 Jun;35(2):106-12
pubmed: 26059390
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020 Oct 16;75(9):1996-2007
pubmed: 31131848
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Sep;14(9):661-7
pubmed: 23545466
Health Info Libr J. 2019 Sep;36(3):202-222
pubmed: 31541534
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Oct 1;16(10):867-73
pubmed: 26096582
Vis Comput. 2021;37(12):3019-3038
pubmed: 34345091
Gerontologist. 2019 Jan 9;59(1):e37-e51
pubmed: 29897445
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 12;8(2):e018815
pubmed: 29440212
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2004 Mar-Apr;19(2):111-6
pubmed: 15106392
Int J Soc Robot. 2021;13(7):1711-1727
pubmed: 33643494
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2008 Mar;9(3):173-7
pubmed: 18294600
J Aging Res. 2016;2016:8569602
pubmed: 27990301
Asia Pac Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;7(1):1-6
pubmed: 24692085
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
JMIR Med Inform. 2020 Aug 20;8(8):e18189
pubmed: 32663146
Australas J Ageing. 2016 Mar;35(1):23-9
pubmed: 26364706
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020 Jun 26;272:183-186
pubmed: 32604631
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012 Feb;13(2):114-120.e1
pubmed: 21450215
J Clin Nurs. 2020 Feb;29(3-4):437-446
pubmed: 31738463
Int J Soc Robot. 2022;14(3):645-656
pubmed: 34394770
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;242:492-500
pubmed: 28873844
J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng. 2022 Jan 21;9:20556683211072385
pubmed: 35083063
Res Nurs Health. 2002 Aug;25(4):246-55
pubmed: 12124719
Int Psychogeriatr. 2020 Aug;32(8):913-935
pubmed: 31547900
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 Mar-Apr;22(2):111-21
pubmed: 17876068
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;242:527-534
pubmed: 28873849
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Dec 30;23(12):e28022
pubmed: 34967760
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 01;18(9):
pubmed: 34062776
Clin Ther. 2020 Feb;42(2):364-371.e4
pubmed: 31987582
Geriatr Nurs. 2022 Jan-Feb;43:97-103
pubmed: 34847509
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Innov Aging. 2021 Apr 24;5(2):igab013
pubmed: 34316517
Clin Ther. 2017 May;39(5):1054-1061
pubmed: 28433400
Healthcare (Basel). 2019 Feb 19;7(1):
pubmed: 30791489
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Dec;72(12):3020-3033
pubmed: 27434512
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;217:1009-12
pubmed: 26294602
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018 Nov;50(6):590-600
pubmed: 30260093
J Holist Nurs. 2012 Mar;30(1):6-15
pubmed: 21772048
Clin Interv Aging. 2021 May 24;16:941-971
pubmed: 34079242
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 9;10(1):e033096
pubmed: 31924639
Maturitas. 2013 Jan;74(1):14-20
pubmed: 23177981
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Apr 28;21(9):
pubmed: 33925161
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Jan;74:15-25
pubmed: 28926749
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020 Apr;20(4):373-378
pubmed: 32077237
Australas J Ageing. 2015 Mar;34(1):27-32
pubmed: 24373064
Clin Interv Aging. 2020 Jul 13;15:1129-1139
pubmed: 32764900