Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35916695›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Methodologies Used to Study the Feasibility, Usability, Efficacy, and Effectiveness of Social Robots For Elderly Adults: Scoping Review.

Aysan Mahmoudi Asl, Mauricio Molinari Ulate, Manuel Franco Martin, Henriëtte van der Roest

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Aysan Mahmoudi AslDepartment of Research and Development, Iberian Institute of Research in Psycho-Sciences, INTRAS Foundation, Zamora, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2231-6650
Mauricio Molinari UlateDepartment of Research and Development, Iberian Institute of Research in Psycho-Sciences, INTRAS Foundation, Zamora, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0616-7683
Manuel Franco MartinPsycho-Sciences Research Group, Salamanca Biomedical Research Institute, Salamanca University, Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3639-2523
Henriëtte van der RoestDepartment on Aging, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Trimbos Insititute, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9898-923X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew research fields to design social robots for older people are emerging. By providing support with communication and social interaction, these robots aim to increase quality of life. Because of the decline in functioning due to cognitive impairment in older people, social robots are regarded as promising, especially for people with dementia. Although study outcomes are hopeful, the quality of studies on the effectiveness of social robots for the elderly is still low due to many methodological limitations.

objectiveWe aimed to review the methodologies used thus far in studies evaluating the feasibility, usability, efficacy, and effectiveness of social robots in clinical and social settings for elderly people, including persons with dementia.

methodsDedicated search strings were developed. Searches in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycInfo, and CINAHL were performed on August 13, 2020.

resultsIn the 33 included papers, 23 different social robots were investigated for their feasibility, usability, efficacy, and effectiveness. A total of 8 (24.2%) studies included elderly persons in the community, 9 (27.3%) included long-term care facility residents, and 16 (48.5%) included people with dementia. Most of the studies had a single aim, of which 7 (21.2%) focused on efficacy and 7 (21.2%) focused on effectiveness. Moreover, forms of randomized controlled trials were the most applied designs. Feasibility and usability were often studied together in mixed methods or experimental designs and were most often studied in individual interventions. Feasibility was often assessed with the Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology model. Efficacy and effectiveness studies used a range of psychosocial and cognitive outcome measures. However, the included studies failed to find significant improvements in quality of life, depression, and cognition.

conclusionsThis study identified several shortcomings in methodologies used to evaluate social robots, resulting in ambivalent study findings. To improve the quality of these types of studies, efficacy/effectiveness studies will benefit from appropriate randomized controlled trial designs with large sample sizes and individual intervention sessions. Experimental designs might work best for feasibility and usability studies. For each of the 3 goals (efficacy/effectiveness, feasibility, and usability) we also recommend a mixed method of data collection. Multiple interaction sessions running for at least 1 month might aid researchers in drawing significant results and prove the real long-term impact of social robots.

Indexed as

DementiaRoboticsAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansQuality of LifeSocial Interactionagedcommunity settingsdementialong-term caremethodspet-botsscoping reviewsocial robots

Identifiers

PMID35916695
PMCPMC9379790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.