No abstract

Background New 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. Objective We 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. Methods Dedicated search strings were developed. Searches in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycInfo, and CINAHL were performed on August 13, 2020. Results In 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. Conclusions This 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.

Background: Computer-based cognitive training programs have been developed with promising results on the maintenance/improvement of cognitive performance in people with dementia. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the cognitive rehabilitation program “GRADIOR” in people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. Method: This study was a single-blind multicenter randomized clinical trial. Participants were recruited from hospitals/day centers. The experimental group (EG) and control group (CG) received computer-based cognitive training (CCT) and routine daily care, respectively. Outcome measures at T0: baseline, T1: at 4 months, T2: at 12 months were compared within and between-groups. Results: Significant differences or important effect sizes were detected at the intragroup and intergroup level for most variables, observing a trend of improvement and/or maintenance at 4 months by Visual Reasoning of Cambridge Cognitive Examination (CAMCOG), Digit and Arithmetic of WAIS-III, Semantic Verbal Fluency, Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), Trail Making Test (TMT)-A-Mistakes and at 12 months by Visual Reasoning of CAMCOG, Digit Symbol of WAIS-III, TMT-B-mistakes, Visual Memory of Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test, Lexical Verbal Fluency-P, Yesavage’s Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), TMT-A-time scales whose objective was to evaluate some executive functions and/or the memory. The CG presented a worsening trend for most of the measures towards 12 months. There was also a significant interaction between “time and group” for MMSE (F = 8.971; p = 0.03; η 2 = 0.019) and the GDS (F = 3.414; p = 0.04; η 2 = 0.041), as well as small effect sizes for TMT-A-time (F = 1.641; p = 0.21; η 2 = 0.021) and TMT-A-mistakes (F = 0.908; p = 0.41; η 2 = 0.019). Conclusion: CCT with GRADIOR has been proved to benefit cognitive functions (ISRCTN:15742788).

No abstract