Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33361589›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2021

Social Robot Interventions for People with Dementia: A Systematic Review on Effects and Quality of Reporting.

Julian Hirt, Nicola Ballhausen, Alexandra Hering, Matthias Kliegel, Thomas Beer, Gabriele Meyer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  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. Review
  18. 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

6 authors.

Julian HirtCenter for Dementia Care, Institute of Applied Nursing Sciences, Department of Health, University of Applied Sciences FHS St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Nicola BallhausenDepartment of Developmental Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
Alexandra HeringCenter for the Interdisciplinary Study of Gerontology and Vulnerability (CIGEV), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Matthias KliegelCenter for the Interdisciplinary Study of Gerontology and Vulnerability (CIGEV), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Thomas BeerCenter for Dementia Care, Institute of Applied Nursing Sciences, Department of Health, University of Applied Sciences FHS St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Gabriele MeyerInternational Graduate Academy, Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing non-pharmacological interventions is a current approach in dementia care to manage responsive behaviors, to maintain functional capacity, and to reduce emotional stress. Novel technologies such as social robot interventions might be useful to engage people with dementia in activities and interactions as well as to improve their cognitive, emotional, and physical status.

objectiveAssessing the effects and the quality of reporting of social robot interventions for people with dementia.

methodsIn our systematic review, we included quasi-experimental and experimental studies published in English, French, or German, irrespective of publication year. Searching CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection was supplemented by citation tracking and free web searching. To assess the methodological quality of included studies, we used tools provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To assess the reporting of the interventions, we applied CReDECI 2 and TIDieR.

resultsWe identified sixteen studies published between 2012 and 2018, including two to 415 participants with mostly non-defined type of dementia. Eight studies had an experimental design. The predominant robot types were pet robots (i.e., PARO). Most studies addressed behavioral, emotion-related, and functional outcomes with beneficial, non-beneficial, and mixed results. Predominantly, cognitive outcomes were not improved. Overall, studies were of moderate methodological quality.

conclusionHeterogeneous populations, intervention characteristics, and measured outcomes make it difficult to generalize the results with regard to clinical practice. The impact of social robot interventions on behavioral, emotion-related, and functional outcomes should therefore be assessed considering the severity of dementia and intervention characteristics.

Indexed as

RoboticsDementiaHumansResearchSocial BehaviorDementiaroboticssystematic reviewtechnology

Identifiers

PMID33361589
PMCPMC7902949

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.