Table 1 Salient features of all studies included in the systematic review
Authors, year, country | N | Intervention type | Setting | Trial design | Age; sex (%) | Intervention applied and control used | Outcomes | Length of exposure | Timepoints measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Banks et al (2008) [13], USA | 38 | Robot | Three LTC facilities | RCT | Age: not reported; sex % not reported | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: no social robot or living dog | Loneliness ; attachment | Exposure of 30 min, once a week for 8 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 7 |
Broadbent et al (2016) [14] , New Zealand | 53 residents 53 staff | Robot | Rest and nursing homes | Non-randomised controlled trial | Mean age: 85·5 years; female: 77% | Intervention applied: social robots; control used: standard care | Acceptability; quality of life; dependency | Robots left on 24/7 for 12 weeks in total | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 12 |
Cohen et al (2016) [15], Switzerland | 34 | Wearable | Home care | Pilot RCT | Mean age: 83·2 years; female: 67% | Intervention applied: intelligent wireless sensor system; control used: standard care | Acceptability | Exposure of 13 weeks | T1: Evaluation at 2 weeks before baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 12 |
53 | Robot | Nursing homes, participants with dementia | Cluster RCT | Mean age: 84 years; female 67% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: standard care | Agitation; depression ; quality of life | Exposure of 30 min, twice a week for 12 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 12; T3: Evaluation at week 25 | |
Liang et al (2017) [18], New Zealand | 30 dyads (LTC consumers and caregivers) | Robot | Dementia day care centre and homes, participants with dementia | Pilot RCT | Age range: 67–98 years; female: 64% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: standard care | Agitation; facial expressions; social interactions; cognition; neuropsychiatric symptomatology; depression; medication usage; blood pressure; heart rate; hair cortisol | Exposure of 1 hour, two to three times a week for 12 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 6; T3: Evaluation at week 12 |
Libin et al (2004) [19], USA | 9 | Robot | Nursing home | Pilot trial | Mean age: 90 years; female: 100% | Intervention applied: social robot; comparator used: plush toy cat | Agitation ; affect; cognition | Exposure of 10 min, two sessions—one with robot, one with toy | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation after session |
Moyle et al (2013) [20], Australia | 18 | Robot | LTC facility | Pilot crossover RCT | Mean age: 85·3 years; female: year not reported | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: reading control group | Wandering ; quality of life; apathy ; depression ; anxiety; emotions | Exposure of 45 min, three times a week for 5 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 5 |
415 | Robot Australia, | 28 LTC facilities | Cluster RCT (three arms) | Mean age: 84·1 years; female: 7·4% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: standard care and plush toy | Engagement; mood; agitation; motor activity; sleep activity; | Exposure of 15 min, three times a week for 10 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 5; T3: Evaluation at week 10 | |
Pu et al (2020) [23], Australia | 43 | Robot | Three LTC facilities, participants with dementia | Pilot RCT | Mean age: 86·0 years; female: 70·7% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: standard care | Motor activity assessment; sleep assessment; depression assessment ; anxiety; agitation; pain; qualitative | Exposure of 30 min daily for 6 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 6 |
Rantz et al (2017) [24], USA | 171 | Environmental Sensors | 13 assisted living communities | Controlled trial | Mean age: 84·8 years; female: 73·6% | Intervention applied: environmentally embedded sensors; control used: standard care | Gait; short physical performance battery assessment; hospitalisation assessment; activities of daily living; depression ; cognition | Exposure of 24/7 for 1 year | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at month 4; T3: Evaluation at month 8; T4: Evaluation at month 12 |
Rantz et al (2012) [25], USA | 41 | Environmental sensors | LTC facility | Nonrandomised controlled trial | Mean age: 84·5 years; female: 66% | Intervention applied: environmental sensors; control used: no sensor | Cognition ; depression ; gait; balance assessment; qualitative | Exposure of 1 year | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at month 4; T3: Evaluation at month 8; T4: Evaluation at month 12 |
Robinson et al (2013) [26], New Zealand | 34 | Robot | Hospital and rest home care facility | RCT | Age range: 55–100 years; sex % not reported | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: standard care | Loneliness ; depression ; quality of life | Exposure of 1 hour, twice a week for 12 weeks total | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 12 |
Thodberg et al (2016) [27], Denmark | 100 | Robot | Four nursing homes | RCT (three arms) | Median age: 85·5 years; female: 69% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: normal activities or toy cat | Physical contact evaluation; eye contact evaluation; verbal communication evaluation | Exposure of 10 min, twice a week for 6 weeks total | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 2; T3: Evaluation at week 4; T4: Evaluation at week 6 |
ValentiSoler et al (2015) [28],Spain | 121 | Robot, 2012– | Nursing homes and day care, participants with dementia | RCT (three arms) | Mean age: 83·5 years; female: 81·5% | Intervention applied: social robot; control used: normal activities | Cognition ; ; neuropsychiatric symptomatology; apathy; quality of life | Exposure of 30 min, twice a week for 3 months | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at 3 months |
Wilmink et al (2020) [29],USA | 490 | Wearable sensors | Six assisted living communities | Restrospective study | Mean age: 88·1 years; female: 69·2% | Intervention applied: wearable sensors; comparator used: no sensor | Hospitalisation evaluation; falls evaluation | Exposure of 1 year | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at year 1; T3: Evaluation at year 2 |
Barrett et al (2019) [30], Ireland | 10 | Robot | Nursing homes, participants with dementia | Pre-post | Mean age: 83 years; female: 70% | Intervention applied: social robot | Acceptability evaluation; accessibility evaluation; depression ; quality of life | Exposure of 60 min, three times a week for 4 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 4 |
Bemelmans et al (2015) [31], Netherlands | 91 | Robot | Six LTC facilities, participants with dementia | Quasi experimental time series ABAB | Age: ≥65 years; female: 80% | A: standard care used; B: social robot | Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment; mood assessment; GIP-28 | Exposure of 15 min, 1 month for each phase | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 4 |
Chen et al (2020) [32], Taiwan | 20 | Robot | Four LTC facilities | Pre-post | Mean age: 81·1 years; female: 65% | Intervention applied: social robot (PARO) | Depression ; loneliness ; quality of life; cognition; qualitative | Exposure of 24/7 for 8 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at 24 hours; T3: Evaluation at week 4; T4: Evaluation at week 8 |
D’Onofrio et al (2019) [33], UK, Italy, Ireland | 38 | Robot | Residential care, hospital and community, participants with dementia | Pre-post | Mean age: 77·1 years; female: 63·2% | Intervention applied: social robot (MARIO) | Depression ; quality of life; social support | Exposure of 45 min, five times | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at not reported |
Fields et al (2021) [34], USA | 15 | Robot | Two LTC facilities | Pilot study | Mean age: 85·8 years; female: 73·3% | Intervention applied: social robot (NAO) | Loneliness ; depression ; mood | Exposure of 10 min, three times | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at after 3 sessions |
Koh et al (2018) [35], South Korea | 33 | Robot | LTC facility | Non-equivalent control pre-post | Mean age: 86·5 years; female: 97% | Intervention applied: social robot (PARO) | Cognitive function; emotion; problem behaviours ; social interactions | Exposure of 30 min, twice a week for 6 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 6 |
Lane et al (2016) [36], USA | 23 | Robot | LTC facility, participants with dementia | Pre-post | Mean age: 80 years; female: 0% | Intervention applied: social robot (PARO) | Negative behavioural states evaluation; positive behavioural states evaluation | No set time (on average, participants made 4·3 interactions apiece of minimum 5 min each) | T1: Evaluation at 1 hour before intervention; T2: Evaluation during intervention; T3: Evaluation at 1–2 hours postintervention |
Lazarou et al (2016) [37], Greece | 4 | Environmental and wearable sensors | LTC facility, participants with dementia | Pre-post | Age: ≥65 years; female: 75% | Intervention applied: smart home environment | Cognition ; depression ; sleep assessment; qualitative | Exposure of 3–4 month period | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at month 4 |
Merilahti et al (2009) [38], Finland | 19 | Environmental and wearable sensors | Assisted living facility | Feasibility trial | Mean age: 78 years; female: 73·7% | Intervention applied: environmentally embedded and wearable sensors | Acceptability evaluation; information collected | Exposure of 84 days on average | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation after trial |
Mihailidis et al (2008) [39], Canada | 8 | Environmental sensors | LTC facility | Quasiexperimental time series ABAB | Mean age: 85 years; female: 83·8% | Intervention applied: environmentally embedded sensors (COACH†) | Handwashing evaluation; interactions with caregivers evaluation; function with independence evaluation | Exposure of One session per day for 8 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline ; T2: Evaluation at day 11; T3: Evaluation at day 21; T4: Evaluation at day 32; T5: Evaluation at day 42 |
Obayashi et al (2020) [40], Japan | 2 participants, | Robot and environmental sensors | 4 caregivers , Nursing home | Feasibility study | Mean age: 95·5 years; female: 100% | Intervention applied: Sota robot plus sleep sensor (Nemuri SCAN‡) | Behavioural motivation evaluation; caregiver burden evaluation | Exposure of 4 days | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at day 2; T3: Evaluation at day 3; T4: Evaluation at day 4 |
Robinson et al (2013) [41], New Zealand | 10 residents, 10 family members | Robot | Dementia unit | Pilot study | Age range: 71–93 years; female: 50% | Intervention applied: pet robot (PARO and Guide) | Acceptability evaluation | Exposure of 1 hour session | T1: Evaluation after intervention |
Robinson et al (2015) [42], New Zealand | 21 | Robot | LTC facility | Pilot study | Mean age: 84·9 years; female: 67% | Intervention applied: pet robot (PARO) | Blood pressure evaluation; heart rate evaluation | Exposure of 10 min | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at 10 min; T3: Evaluation at 15 min |
Sung et al (2015) [43], Taiwan | 12 | Robot | LTC facility | Pilot study | Mean age: 77·2 years; female: 25% | Intervention applied: pet robot (PARO) | Communication/social skills; activity participation | Exposure of 30 min, twice a week for 4 weeks | T1: Evaluation at baseline; T2: Evaluation at week 4 |