Development of Scenario-Type Robot Recreation Program for the Elderly with Dementia and Its Evaluation

Itai, Shiroh; Shimoda, Akihiro; Yoneoka, Toshihiko; Hamada, Toshihiro

doi:10.1109/uv50937.2020.9426218

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall findings were mixed; some studies suggested therapeutic effects of the robots, whereas others were neutral or inconclusive. The most commonly reported benefits of the social robots were improved mood and emotional states [ 33 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 72 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 92 - 94 ] and an increase in social interaction between the residents and other human interactors [ 31 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 52 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 69 , 72 , 75 , 81 , 82 , 95 - 98 ], including caregivers [ 69 ] and preschoolers [ 59 ]. Other commonly reported benefits of the robots were reduced loneliness [ 36 , 92 , 99 ], evoked positive memories of pets [ 59 , 65 , 85 , 96 , 100 ], improved quality of life [ 53 , 79 ] and well-being [ 65 ], reduced pain and pain medication use [ 85 , 86 ], cognitive stimulation [ 31 , 59 , 78 ], and improved behavior [ 49 , 55 , 80 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies (27/69, 39%) relied on facilitation of robots by researchers, nursing staff, or relatives [ 35 , 38 , 42 - 45 , 48 , 52 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 67 , 72 , 75 - 77 , 79 - 81 , 83 , 84 , 89 , 90 , 96 , 98 , 101 ]. Four of these studies [ 38 , 52 , 62 , 101 ] suggested one-on-one sessions or groups of <3 to maximize the benefits of robots, but one-on-one sessions were time intensive for caregivers [ 38 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies that explored the impact of robots on professional caregivers, robot use was associated with nursing staff’s attitude toward the robot [ 65 ], caregivers’ high workload was identified as a barrier to incorporating the robots into care [ 65 , 96 ], and operating the robots was found to be a burden and increased workload for the staff [ 84 , 88 ]. One study [ 38 ] reported that caregivers desired more preprogrammed activities to reduce the workload associated with using a care robot, and another study [ 81 ] addressed this need by systematizing the use of a recreational robot, significantly increasing participation. Another study presented a system that allowed caregivers to teach a robot how to facilitate a game with residents and allowed caregivers to personalize the robot’s behavior [ 67 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most commonly reported benefit of the robots was improved mood and emotional states [ 33 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 72 , 74 , 76 , 78 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 92 - 94 ]. Other commonly identified benefits were increased social interaction [ 31 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 52 , 55 , 58 , 59 , 63 , 69 , 72 , 75 , 81 , 82 , 95 - 98 ], reduced loneliness [ 36 , 92 , 99 ], evocation of positive memories [ 59 , 65 , 85 , 96 , 100 ], cognitive stimulation [ 31 , 59 , 78 ], improved quality of life and well-being [ 53 , 65 , 79 ], reduced pain and medication use [ 85 , 86 ], improved behavior [ 49 , 55 , 80 ], and increased movement [ 50 , 62 , 72 , 100 , 101 ]. Similar findings were identified by other literature reviews [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The few studies in our review that focused on caregivers suggest that robots have the potential to increase the capacity for care by freeing caregivers to perform more meaningful tasks; however, robots also have the potential to increase workload, which is a barrier to their use. One study successfully increased participation by systematizing a robotic program to reduce barriers for caregivers [ 81 ]. It is crucial for researchers to carefully consider caregiver needs when designing robots; otherwise, the benefits identified in this literature review will not be achieved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Robots in Assisted Living Facilities: Scoping Review

Trainum¹,

Tunis²,

Xie³

et al. 2023

JMIR Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 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 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 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 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.

show abstract