Examining Social Robot Acceptability for Older Adults and People with Dementia

Social robots that aim to support the independence and wellbeing of older adults and people with dementia are being introduced into dementia care settings. However, the acceptability of robots varies greatly between people and the rate that robots are deployed into practice is currently low. This chapter defines robot acceptability and provides an overview of theoretical technology acceptance models. It reviews the empirical literature and identifies the individual and contextual factors that impact acceptability in relation to the needs of older adults and people with dementia, focusing on what potential robot users need to motivate them to accept robots into their everyday lives. Then the literature is discussed in the light of current discourses in gerontology, recommending what is needed to increase the acceptability of robots. The capacity of robots, to communicate in a human-like way needs to increase and robots need to be designed with in-depth end-user collaboration, to be person-centred and deployed in ways that enhance the strengths of people with dementia. Guidance for good practice in participatory design is provided. Longitudinal research that uses triangulated data from multiple sources. is recommended to identify the needs of individuals, significant others, and wider contextual factors

Students' experiences of implementing clinical skills in the real world of practice

Journal articleAims and objectives - To examine the factors that impact on students' implementation of clinical skills in the practice setting. This was a part of a larger exploration into the role of the Clinical Skills Laboratory in preparing student nurses for clinical practice. Background - It is already known that students can experience reality shock on clinical placement and that staff support is crucial for their adaptation to the environment. This process is similar to socialisation theory whereby the newcomer adapts to the workplace. Design - A multiple case study design (n = 5) was used. Methods - Data were collected using semi-structured interviews (n = 43) and non-participant observation of students implementing skills in clinical practice. Results - Findings revealed the factors that could facilitate students' implementation of clinical skills were as follows: provision of learning opportunities, staff support and supervision, and students' confidence. Factors that hindered students were reality shock, ¿the gap¿ in how skills were taught in the higher education institutions and the clinical setting, and missed learning opportunities. Support from peers in the clinical area and having previous experience of working as a health care assistant, or similar, were the factors that could either positively or negatively impact on students. Conclusions - Students need to be adequately prepared for the real-life clinical environment. Understanding, through socialisation theory, how students adapt to the workplace can facilitate this process. Facilitating students' learning includes supporting them, developing their confidence and ensuring that they have prior exposure to undertaking clinical skills. Relevance to practice -- Staff working with students in clinical practice can help facilitate students¿ learning and implementing of clinical skills through an understanding of how students adapt and ¿fit in¿ to their working environment.peer-reviewe

The Perceptions of People with Dementia and Key Stakeholders Regarding the Use and Impact of the Social Robot MARIO

People with dementia often experience loneliness and social isolation. This can result in increased cognitive decline which, in turn, has a negative impact on quality of life. This paper explores the use of the social robot, MARIO, with older people living with dementia as a way of addressing these issues. A descriptive qualitative study was conducted to explore the perceptions and experiences of the use and impact of MARIO. The research took place in the UK, Italy and Ireland. Semi-structured interviews were held in each location with people with dementia (n = 38), relatives/carers (n = 28), formal carers (n = 28) and managers (n = 13). The data was analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings revealed that despite challenges in relation to voice recognition and the practicalities of conducting research involving robots in real-life settings, most participants were positive about MARIO. Through the robot’s user-led design and personalized applications, MARIO provided a point of interest, social activities, and cognitive engagement increased. However, some formal carers and managers voiced concern that robots might replace care staff

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia (Review)

Background Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer but for more than a decade, there have been increased calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. Objectives To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia and to report on the range of outcome measures used. Search methods We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 February 2016. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization ICTRP trial portal to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. Selection criteria We searched for randomised (RCT) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCT), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with dementia of any type, staged as advanced dementia by a recognised and validated tool. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies on the basis of outcomes measured and recorded all outcomes measured in included studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, when required, consulted with the rest of the review team. We independently extracted data and conducted assessment of methodological quality, using standard Cochrane methods. Main results We identified two studies of palliative care interventions for people with advanced dementia. We did not pool data due to the heterogeneity between the two trials in terms of the interventions and the settings. The two studies measured 31 different outcomes, yet they did not measure the same outcome. There are six ongoing studies that we expect to include in future versions of this review. Both studies were at high risk of bias, in part because blinding was not possible. This and small sample sizes meant that the overall certainty of all the evidence was very low. One individually randomised RCT (99 participants) evaluated the effect of a palliative care team for people with advanced dementia hospitalised for an acute illness. While this trial reported that a palliative care plan was more likely to be developed for participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 5.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 25.02), the plan was only adopted for two participants, both in the intervention group, while in hospital. The palliative care plan was more likely to be available on discharge in the intervention group (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 19.75). We found no evidence that the intervention affected mortality in hospital (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13), decisions to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital or the clinical care provided during hospital admission, but for the latter, event rates were low and the results were associated with a lot of uncertainty. One cluster RCT (256 participants, each enrolled with a family carer) evaluated the effect of a decision aid on end-of-life feeding options on surrogate decision-makers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Data for 90 participants (35% of the original study) met the definition of advanced dementia for this review and were re-analysed for the purposes of the review. In this subset, intervention surrogates had lower scores for decisional conflict measured on the Decisional Conflict Scale (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.01, reduction of 0.3 to 0.4 units considered meaningful) and were more likely than participants in the control group to discuss feeding options with a clinician (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.64), but imprecision meant that there was significant uncertainty about both results. Authors' conclusions Very little high quality work has been completed exploring palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. There were only two included studies in this review, with variation in the interventions and in the settings that made it impossible to conduct a meta-analysis of data for any outcome. Thus, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The fact that there are six ongoing studies at the time of this review indicates an increased interest in this area by researchers, which is welcome and needed. Plain language summary Palliative care for people with advanced dementia Review question In this research, we wanted to see if palliative care helps people with advanced dementia or helps their family or carers. We also wanted to describe how researchers tried to measure the effect of palliative care. Background People with advanced dementia have serious memory problems and have problems making simple decisions. They are usually no longer able to communicate by talking. They need a lot of help from their carers. People with advanced dementia can live for a long time. It is very hard to say exactly how long a person with advanced dementia will live. Palliative care (or end-of-life care) is a particular way of caring for people who have diseases that cannot be cured. The main aims of palliative care are to reduce pain and to maintain the best possible quality of life as death approaches. Palliative care is used a lot with people with cancer but is not used much for people with advanced dementia. Study characteristics We examined the research published up to January 2016. We found only two suitable studies (189 people), both from the US. We also found six studies that were underway but the results were not yet published. Key results One study found that having a small team of doctors and nurses trained in palliative care made little difference to how people with advanced dementia were treated while in hospital. But, having this special team meant that more people had a palliative care plan when they were discharged from hospital. The other study measured if giving written information to relatives explaining the different methods that can be used to feed people with advanced dementia helped either the relatives or the person. This study found that giving relatives this information made it a little easier for relatives to make decisions about what methods would be used to feed the person with dementia. Certainty of evidence We only found two studies and the two palliative care methods in these studies were very different. We cannot be very certain about how accurate either of these results reported here are, partly because only a small number of people took part in the studies. So from these studies, it is hard to be sure whether palliative care makes a difference to people with advanced dementia. Final thoughts Little research has been done about people with advanced dementia, often because of ethical concerns. However, although it is hard to do research with people with dementia, more well-designed studies are required to work out how palliative care can be used best in this special population

The feasibility of a Comprehensive Resilience-building psychosocial Intervention (CREST) for people with dementia in the community: protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study

Background: A dementia diagnosis can prevent people from participating in society, leading to a further decline in cognitive, social and physical health. However, it may be possible for people with dementia to continue to live meaningful lives and continue to participate actively in society if a supportive psychosocial environment exists. Resilience theory, which focuses on strengthening personal attributes and external assets in the face of serious challenges, may provide a scaffold on which an inclusive multifaceted psychosocial supportive environment can be built. This protocol paper describes a study to determine the feasibility of conducting a multifaceted complex resilience building psychosocial intervention for people with dementia and their caregivers living in the community. Methods: This is a non-randomised feasibility study. Ten participants with dementia and their primary caregivers living in the community will be recruited and receive the CREST intervention. The intervention provides (a) a 7-week cognitive stimulation programme followed by an 8-week physical exercise programme for people with dementia and (b) a 6-week educational programme for caregivers. Members of the wider community will be invited to a dementia awareness programme and GP practices to a dementia training workshop. Trained professionals will deliver all intervention components. Outcomes will assess the feasibility and acceptability of all study processes. The feasibility and acceptability of a range of outcomes to be collected in a future definitive trial, including economic measurements, will also be explored. Finally, social marketing will be used to map a route toward stigma change in dementia for use in a subsequent trial. Quantitative feasibility outcome assessments will be completed at baseline and after completion of the 15-week intervention while qualitative data will be collected at recruitment, baseline, during and post-intervention delivery. Conclusion: This feasibility study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and acceptability of a comprehensive multifaceted psychosocial intervention programme for people with dementia and their caregivers (CREST). The results will be used to inform the development and implementation of a subsequent RCT, should the findings support feasibility

The feasibility of a comprehensive resilience-building psychosocial Intervention (CREST) for people with dementia in the community: protocol for a non-randomised feasibility study

Background: A dementia diagnosis can prevent people from participating in society, leading to a further decline in cognitive, social and physical health. However, it may be possible for people with dementia to continue to live meaningful lives and continue to participate actively in society if a supportive psychosocial environment exists. Resilience theory, which focuses on strengthening personal attributes and external assets in the face of serious challenges, may provide a scaffold on which an inclusive multifaceted psychosocial supportive environment can be built. This protocol paper describes a study to determine the feasibility of conducting a multifaceted complex resilience building psychosocial intervention for people with dementia and their caregivers living in the community. Methods: This is a non-randomised feasibility study. Ten participants with dementia and their primary caregivers living in the community will be recruited and receive the CREST intervention. The intervention provides (a) a 7-week cognitive stimulation programme followed by an 8-week physical exercise programme for people with dementia and (b) a 6-week educational programme for caregivers. Members of the wider community will be invited to a dementia awareness programme and GP practices to a dementia training workshop. Trained professionals will deliver all intervention components. Outcomes will assess the feasibility and acceptability of all study processes. The feasibility and acceptability of a range of outcomes to be collected in a future definitive trial, including economic measurements, will also be explored. Finally, social marketing will be used to map a route toward stigma change in dementia for use in a subsequent trial. Quantitative feasibility outcome assessments will be completed at baseline and after completion of the 15-week intervention while qualitative data will be collected at recruitment, baseline, during and post-intervention delivery Conclusion: This feasibility study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and acceptability of a comprehensive multifaceted psychosocial intervention programme for people with dementia and their caregivers (CREST). The results will be used to inform the development and implementation of a subsequent RCT, should the findings support feasibility. Trial registration: ISRCTN25294519 Retrospectively registered 07.10.201

Technologies to support community-dwelling persons with dementia: a position paper on issues regarding development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics

Background: With the expected increase in the numbers of persons with dementia, providing timely, adequate, and affordable care and support is challenging. Assistive and health technologies may be a valuable contribution in dementia care, but new challenges may emerge. Objective: The aim of our study was to review the state of the art of technologies for persons with dementia regarding issues on development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics in 3 fields of application of technologies: (1) support with managing everyday life, (2) support with participating in pleasurable and meaningful activities, and (3) support with dementia health and social care provision. The study also aimed to identify gaps in the evidence and challenges for future research. Methods: Reviews of literature and expert opinions were used in our study. Literature searches were conducted on usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and ethics using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases with no time limit. Selection criteria in our selected technology fields were reviews in English for community-dwelling persons with dementia. Regarding deployment issues, searches were done in Health Technology Assessment databases Results: According to our results, persons with dementia want to be included in the development of technologies; there is little research on the usability of assistive technologies; various benefits are reported but are mainly based on low-quality studies; barriers to deployment of technologies in dementia care were identified, and ethical issues were raised by researchers but often not studied. Many challenges remain such as including the target group more often in development, performing more high-quality studies on usability and effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, creating and having access to high-quality datasets on existing technologies to enable adequate deployment of technologies in dementia care, and ensuring that ethical issues are considered an important topic for researchers to include in their evaluation of assistive technologies. Conclusions: Based on these findings, various actions are recommended for development, usability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, deployment, and ethics of assistive and health technologies across Europe. These include avoiding replication of technology development that is unhelpful or ineffective and focusing on how technologies succeed in addressing individual needs of persons with dementia. Furthermore, it is suggested to include these recommendations in national and international calls for funding and assistive technology research programs. Finally, practitioners, policy makers, care insurers, and care providers should work together with technology enterprises and researchers to prepare strategies for the implementation of assistive technologies in different care settings. This may help future generations of persons with dementia to utilize available and affordable technologies and, ultimately, to benefit from them

Use and uptake of technology by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic

ObjectiveThis rapid review aims to identify the types of technologies used by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the issues which influenced technology adoption within their usual care routines.MethodsPubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane COVID reviews were searched to identify peer-review studies published since 2020. A total of 18 studies were included and synthesised thematically.ResultsOf these, most were conducted in the community (n = 15) with people with dementia only (n = 11) and involved qualitative methods (n = 11). The majority (n = 12) focused on digital off-the-shelf and low-cost solutions, such as free video conferencing platforms, to access care, socialise or take part in interventions. Whilst often well-accepted and associated with positive outcomes (such as improved social connectedness), lack of digital literacy or support to use technologies, limited access to appropriate technology, individuals’ physical, cognitive, or sensory difficulties, were highlighted and likely to threaten the adoption of these solutions. The quality of the evidence was mixed, neither very robust nor easily generalisable which may be attributed to the challenges of conducting research during the pandemic or the need to rapidly adapt to a new reality.ConclusionWhile COVID-19 has fast-tracked the adoption of technology, its use is likely to continue beyond the pandemic. We need to ensure this technology can leverage dementia support and care and that people with dementia are enabled and empowered to use it

Use and uptake of technology by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective: This rapid review aims to identify the types of technologies used by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the issues which influenced technology adoption within their usual care routines. Methods: PubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane COVID reviews were searched to identify peer-review studies published since 2020. A total of 18 studies were included and synthesised thematically. Results: Of these, most were conducted in the community (n=15) with people with dementia only (n=11) and involved qualitative methods (n=11). The majority (n=12) focused on digital off-the-shelf and low-cost solutions, such as free video conferencing platforms, to access care, socialise or take part in interventions. Whilst often well-accepted and associated with positive outcomes (such as improved social connectedness), lack of digital literacy or support to use technologies, limited access to appropriate technology, individuals’ physical, cognitive, or sensory difficulties, were highlighted and likely to threaten the adoption of these solutions. The quality of the evidence was mixed, neither very robust nor easily generalisable which may be attributed to the challenges of conducting research during the pandemic or the need to rapidly adapt to a new reality. Conclusion: While COVID-19 has fast-tracked the adoption of technology, its use is likely to continue beyond the pandemic. We need to ensure this technology can leverage dementia support and care and that people with dementia are enabled and empowered to use it

Rapid systematic review of systematic reviews : what befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions, delivered remotely, may reduce social isolation and loneliness among older adults and how? [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic ‘social distancing’ has highlighted the need to minimise loneliness and isolation among older adults (aged 50+). We wanted to know what remotely delivered befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions may help to alleviate social isolation and loneliness and how they work. METHODS: We followed a systematic ‘review of reviews’ approach. Searches of 11 databases from the fields of health, social care, psychology and social science were undertaken during April 2020. Reviews meeting our PICOS criteria were included if they focussed on the evaluation of remote interventions to reduce levels of social isolation or loneliness in adults aged 50+ and were critically appraised using AMSTAR2. Narrative synthesis was used at a review and study level to develop a typology of intervention types and their effectiveness. Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) were used at a study level to explore the characteristics of successful interventions. RESULTS: We synthesised evidence from five systematic reviews and 18 primary studies. Remote befriending, social support and low intensity psychosocial interventions took the form of: (i) supported video-communication; (ii) online discussion groups and forums; (iii) telephone befriending; (iv) social networking sites; and (v) multi-tool interventions. The majority of studies utilised the first two approaches, and were generally regarded positively by older adults, although with mixed evidence around effectiveness. Focussing on processes and mechanisms, using ICA and QCA, we found that the interventions that were most successful in improving social support: (i) enabled participants to speak freely and to form close relationships; (ii) ensured participants have shared experiences/characteristics; (iii) included some form of pastoral guidance. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight a set of intervention processes that should be incorporated into interventions, although they do not lead us to recommend specific modes of support, due to the heterogeneity of interventions