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

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

Mobile early detection and connected intervention to coproduce better care in severe mental illness

Current approaches to the management of severe mentalillness have four major limitations: 1) symptom reporting isintermittent and subject to problems with reliability; 2) serviceusers report feelings of disengagement from their careplanning; 3) late detection of symptoms delay interventionsand increase the risk of relapse; and 4) care systems are heldback by the costs of unscheduled hospital admissions thatcould have been avoided with earlier detection andintervention. The ClinTouch system was developed to close theloop between service users and health professionals.ClinTouch is an end-to-end secure platform, providing avalidated mobile assessment technology, a web interface toview symptom data and a clinical algorithm to detect risk ofrelapse. ClinTouch integrates high-resolution, continuouslongitudinal symptom data into mental health care servicesand presents it in a form that is easy to use for targeting carewhere it is needed. The architecture and methodology can beeasily extended to other clinical domains, where the paradigmof targeted clinical interventions, triggered by the earlydetection of decline, can improve health outcomes

The SOS-framework (Systems of Sedentary behaviours): an international transdisciplinary consensus framework for the study of determinants, research priorities and policy on sedentary behaviour across the life course: a DEDIPAC-study.

BACKGROUND: Ecological models are currently the most used approaches to classify and conceptualise determinants of sedentary behaviour, but these approaches are limited in their ability to capture the complexity of and interplay between determinants. The aim of the project described here was to develop a transdisciplinary dynamic framework, grounded in a system-based approach, for research on determinants of sedentary behaviour across the life span and intervention and policy planning and evaluation. METHODS: A comprehensive concept mapping approach was used to develop the Systems Of Sedentary behaviours (SOS) framework, involving four main phases: (1) preparation, (2) generation of statements, (3) structuring (sorting and ranking), and (4) analysis and interpretation. The first two phases were undertaken between December 2013 and February 2015 by the DEDIPAC KH team (DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity Knowledge Hub). The last two phases were completed during a two-day consensus meeting in June 2015. RESULTS: During the first phase, 550 factors regarding sedentary behaviour were listed across three age groups (i.e., youths, adults and older adults), which were reduced to a final list of 190 life course factors in phase 2 used during the consensus meeting. In total, 69 international delegates, seven invited experts and one concept mapping consultant attended the consensus meeting. The final framework obtained during that meeting consisted of six clusters of determinants: Physical Health and Wellbeing (71% consensus), Social and Cultural Context (59% consensus), Built and Natural Environment (65% consensus), Psychology and Behaviour (80% consensus), Politics and Economics (78% consensus), and Institutional and Home Settings (78% consensus). Conducting studies on Institutional Settings was ranked as the first research priority. The view that this framework captures a system-based map of determinants of sedentary behaviour was expressed by 89% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Through an international transdisciplinary consensus process, the SOS framework was developed for the determinants of sedentary behaviour through the life course. Investigating the influence of Institutional and Home Settings was deemed to be the most important area of research to focus on at present and potentially the most modifiable. The SOS framework can be used as an important tool to prioritise future research and to develop policies to reduce sedentary time

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Fostering the resilience of people with dementia: A narrative literature review

Background: Resilience is a process through which people use resources to adapt to adversity. Interventions aiming to support resilience in people with dementia have been developed. However, the optimal content, structure and impact of these interventions is unclear. This literature review explores the factors through which interventions foster resilience in people with dementia and examines their efficacy. Methods: Eight databases were searched systematically, for literature published from 2000 to 2019. Following the removal of duplicate articles, the titles and abstracts of 6,749 articles were screened. Articles were selected if they: reported empirical studies in English; focused on resilience; involved people with dementia and psychosocial interventions. The full text of 53 articles were examined and three studies, reported in six papers, were included in the final review. Data were systematically extracted, and two authors critiqued the studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme check lists. The studies were examined to determine how resilience was defined and operationalized and their findings were synthesized using the theoretical resilience framework. Results: Five interventions aiming to foster resilience were identified: Dementia Advisors; Peer Support Network Services; Visual Arts Enrichment Activities; Memory Makers; and Early-Stage and Beyond Community Activities. All studies defined resilience as a process and most involved people with mild dementia who had family carers. The interventions impacted resilience by reducing the adversity of stigma and social isolation; increasing personal and social resources, providing stigma-free space and reciprocal support. Interventions empowered people with dementia, increasing their self-esteem and self-worth. Resilience can be fostered both during, and after interventions. However, the efficacy of interventions could not be determined because the research designs utilized did not measure efficacy. Conclusions: Interventions need facilitators to ensure they are strength-based, person-centered and they enable reciprocal social interactions. Future research needs to develop interventions that aim to foster the resilience of people with dementia who lack family carers and/or have more advanced dementia through meaningful activities that are identified by people with dementia as important to their resilience. Robust methodologies, including randomized controlled trials should be used to measure effectiveness and explore the impact of interventions regarding the: interplay between individual and community resources; the importance of reciprocity; and temporal aspects of resilience.This work was supported by a Ph.D. scholarship from the College of Medicine, Nursing and Midwifery, and Health Sciences, at the National University of Ireland Galway.peer-reviewe