Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32958491›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2020

Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review.

Ricarda Servaty, Annalena Kersten, Kirsten Brukamp, Ralph Möhler, Martin Mueller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ricarda ServatyFaculty of Applied Health and Social Sciences, Technical University of Applied Sciences, Rosenheim, Germany ricarda.servaty@th-rosenheim.de.ORCID 0000-0002-0534-0296
Annalena KerstenProtestant University of Applied Sciences, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Kirsten BrukampProtestant University of Applied Sciences, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Ralph MöhlerSchool of Public Health, Universitat Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
Martin MuellerFaculty of Applied Health and Social Sciences, Technical University of Applied Sciences, Rosenheim, Germany.
Evangelische Hochschule Ludwigsburg · DERosenheim Technical University of Applied Sciences · DEBielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.

methodsArticles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.

resultsAfter removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: This review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018073486.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresEuropeHumansNew ZealandNursing Homesbiotechnology & bioinformaticsgeriatric medicineprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32958491
PMCPMC7507851
OpenAlexW3087524314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.