Facilitators and barriers to using telepresence robots in aged care settings: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

IntroductionSocial isolation is a significant issue in aged care settings (eg, long-term care (LTC) and hospital) and is associated with adverse outcomes such as reduced well-being and loneliness. Loneliness is linked with depression, anxiety, cognitive decline, weakened immune system, poor physical health, poor quality of life and mortality. The use of robotic assistance may help mitigate social isolation and loneliness. Although telepresence robots have been used in healthcare settings, a comprehensive review of studies focusing on their use in aged care for reducing social isolation requires further investigation. This scoping review will focus on the use of telepresence robots to support social connection of older people in care settings.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. The review team consists of patient partners and family partners, a nurse researcher and a group of students. In the scoping review, we will search the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Google and Google Scholar will be used to search for additional literature. A handsearch will be conducted using the reference lists of included studies to identify additional relevant articles. The scoping review will consider studies of using a telepresence robotic technology with older adults in care settings (ie, LTC and hospital), published in English.Ethics and disseminationSince the methodology of the study consists of collecting data from publicly available articles, it does not require ethics approval. By examining the current state of using telepresence to support older people in care settings, this scoping review can offer useful insight into users’ needs (eg, patients’ and care providers’ needs) and inform future research and practice. We will share the scoping review results through conference presentations and an open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Facilitators and barriers to using telepresence robots in aged care settings: A scoping review

“… 16 The objective, inclusion criteria and method for this scoping review were specified in advance and documented in a protocol. 17 The electronic search strategy and details for the search process and search terms, including the adjacency (ADJn) operator and truncation used in the search, have been reported in the published protocol.…”

Telepresence Robot Intervention to Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation in Older Adults Living at Home (Project DOMIROB): Protocol for a Clinical Nonrandomized Study

“…Since the beginning of the COVID-19 health crisis, different stakeholders have shown an increasing interest in innovative remote communication solutions and TRs [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. However, thus far, there is limited available evidence concerning the implementation and usefulness of TRs in a home-dwelling OA population.…”

Barriers and facilitators of digital interventions use to reduce loneliness among older adults: a protocol for a qualitative systematic review

“…31 35 36 39 40 45 47-49 52 53 The scoping reviews also focused on the classification and mechanisms of action of digital interventions. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Although most reviews found the effectiveness of digital interventions, most digital intervention techniques are not tailored for older adults. 40 55 56 The 'heterogeneity' of older adults, such as declining cognitive and sensory abilities, can make them face barriers that do not easily allow them to use digital technologies.…”

“…We systematically searched the PubMed database for current literatures without language or year restrictions, using the terms ‘loneliness’, ‘older adults’, ‘intervention’ and ‘systematic review’. We identified 28 reviews of digital interventions, including 10 scoping reviews,29–3811 systematic reviews (including 7 meta-reviews),22 30 39–47 2 narrative reviews,48 49 2 rapid reviews,50 51 1 umbrella review,52 1 mini-review53 and 1 systematic review of systematic reviews 54. The majority of the reviews aimed to explore the effectiveness of several or all of the digital interventions on reducing loneliness 31 35 36 39 40 45 47–49 52 53.…”

“…The majority of the reviews aimed to explore the effectiveness of several or all of the digital interventions on reducing loneliness 31 35 36 39 40 45 47–49 52 53. The scoping reviews also focused on the classification and mechanisms of action of digital interventions 29–38. Although most reviews found the effectiveness of digital interventions, most digital intervention techniques are not tailored for older adults 40 55 56.…”